Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0891-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Proposed Approval of the Jefferson County (Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV), Ohio 8-hour Ozone Redesignation and Maintenance Plan
Posted Date: 2007-01-08T05:00Z

[Federal Register: January 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 4)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 711-724]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08ja07-25]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0891; FRL-8266-4]

 
Redesignation of Jefferson County, Ohio To Attainment of the 8-
Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On July 31, 2006, and supplemented on October 3, 2006, the 
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) submitted: a request 
for EPA approval of redesignation of Jefferson County to attainment of 
the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), and a 
request for EPA approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
for the ozone maintenance plan for Jefferson County. Jefferson County 
is the Ohio portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to determine that this area has 
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on three years of complete, 
quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data. Preliminary, non-
quality assured data for the 2006 ozone season show that the area 
continues to attain the NAAQS. EPA is also proposing approval of Ohio's 
ozone maintenance plan for Jefferson County as a revision to the Ohio 
SIP and the State's request to redesignate Jefferson County to 
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQs. Finally, EPA is proposing to 
approve the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides 
(NOX) Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for Jefferson 
County, as supported by the ozone maintenance plan for this County, for 
purposes of conformity determinations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 7, 2007. Submit 
your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0891, by 
one of the following methods:
     http://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 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

[[Page 712]]

Illinois. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional 
Office's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be 
made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office's 
official hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0891. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI, or otherwise protected, through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov 

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part 
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available 
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends 
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of 
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read 
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of 
encryption, and should be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hardcopy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hardcopy at the Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 
It is recommended that you telephone Jennifer Dunn, Environmental 
Engineer, at (312) 353-5899, before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Dunn, Environmental Engineer, 
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-5899, dunn.jennifer@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 Actions Are EPA Proposing To Take?
II. What Is the Background for These Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
IV. What Are EPA's Analyses of the State's Requests and What Are the 
Bases for EPA's Proposed Actions?
V. Has Ohio Adopted Acceptable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 
the End Year of the Ozone Maintenance Plans Which Can Be Used To 
Support Conformity Determinations?
VI. What Are the Effects of EPA's Proposed Actions?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Actions Are EPA Proposing To Take?

    We are proposing to take several related actions for Jefferson 
County, Ohio. First, we are proposing to determine that Jefferson 
County has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Second, we are proposing to approve Ohio's ozone maintenance plan 
for Jefferson County as a requested revision of the Ohio SIP. The 
maintenance plan is designed to keep Jefferson County and, in 
conjunction with a West Virginia ozone maintenance plan for Hancock and 
Brooke Counties, the entire Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area in 
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years, through 
2018.
    Third, we are proposing to find that Jefferson County and the State 
of Ohio have met the requirements for redesignation to attainment of 
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA). We are, therefore, proposing to approve the July 31, 2006, and 
October 3, 2006, requests from the State of Ohio to change the 
designation of Jefferson County from nonattainment to attainment of the 
8-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A separate proposed rule from EPA published on October 2, 
2006 (71 FR 57905) addresses a request from the State of West 
Virginia to redesignate Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia 
to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, as supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance 
plan, we are also proposing to approve the 2018 VOC and NOX 
MVEBs for Jefferson County for conformity determination purposes.
    These proposed actions pertain to the designation of Jefferson 
County for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and to the VOC and NOX 
emission controls in this County related to attainment and maintenance 
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If you own or operate a VOC or 
NOX emissions source in this County or live in this County, 
this proposed rule may impact or apply to you. It may impact you if you 
are involved in transportation planning or implementation of emission 
controls in this area. Finally, it may also impact you if you breathe 
the air in Jefferson County or the air which has passed through 
Jefferson County or the Steubenville-Weirton area as a whole.

II. What Is the Background for These Actions?

    EPA has determined that ground-level ozone is detrimental to human 
health. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR 
38856) of 0.08 parts per million parts of air (0.08 ppm) (80 parts per 
billion (ppb)).\2\ This 8-hour ozone standard replaced a prior 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS, which was promulgated on February 8, 1979 (44 FR 8202) and 
revoked on June 15, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This standard is violated in an area when any ozone monitor 
in the area (or in its impacted downwind environs) records 8-hour 
ozone concentrations with a three year average of the annual fourth-
highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations equaling or 
exceeding 85 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, 
emitted NOX and VOC react in the presence of sunlight to 
form ground-level ozone along with other secondary compounds. 
NOX and VOC are referred to as ``ozone precursors.''
    The CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that 
violated the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The three most recent years of ozone 
data at the time (2001-2003 when the 8-hour ozone designations were 
initially established) were considered to establish the ozone 
designations. The Federal Register notice making these designations was 
published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857).
    The CAA contains two sets of provisions--subpart 1 and subpart 2--
that address planning and emission control requirements for 
nonattainment areas. (Both are found in title I, part D of the CAA). 
Subpart 1 contains general, less prescriptive requirements for 
nonattainment areas for any pollutant

[[Page 713]]

governed by a NAAQS, and applies to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 
contains more specific requirements for certain ozone nonattainment 
areas, and applies to ozone nonattainment areas classified under 
section 181 of the CAA.
    In the April 30, 2004, designation rulemaking, EPA divided 8-hour 
ozone nonattainment areas into the categories of subpart 1 
nonattainment (``basic'' nonattainment) and subpart 2 nonattainment 
(``classified'' nonattainment) based on their 8-hour ozone design 
values (i.e., on the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest 
daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations at the worst-case monitoring 
sites in the designated areas) and on their 1-hour ozone design values 
(i.e., on the fourth-highest daily maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations 
over the three-year period at the worst-case monitoring sites in the 
designated areas).\3\ 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas with 1-hour 
ozone design values equaling or exceeding 121 ppb were designated as 
subpart 2, classified nonattainment areas. Classification of the 
subpart 2 nonattainment areas were based on the levels of the monitored 
8-hour ozone design values for each nonattainment area. All other 8-
hour nonattainment areas were designated as subpart 1, basic 
nonattainment areas, which have no area-specific classifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 8-hour ozone design value and the 1-hour ozone design 
value for each area were not necessarily recorded at the same 
monitoring site. The worst-case monitoring site for each ozone 
concentration averaging time was considered for each area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emission control requirements for classified nonattainment areas 
are linked to area classifications. Areas with more serious ozone 
pollution problems are subject to more prescribed requirements. The 
requirements are designed to bring areas into attainment by their 
specified attainment dates, which also depend on the area 
classifications. For example, marginal nonattainment areas are subject 
to the fewest mandated control requirements and have the earliest 
attainment deadline. Severe nonattainment areas are required to meet 
more mandated emission controls than marginal areas, including tighter 
restrictions on the sizes of existing VOC and NOX sources 
required to install emission controls, tighter restrictions on mandated 
emission controls, and offsetting of new sources. Severe nonattainment 
areas also have a later attainment deadline. In contrast, the 
attainment deadline for basic nonattainment areas does not depend on 
the magnitude of the area 8-hour ozone design values.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard 
is attained when the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest 
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations is less than or equal 
to 0.08 ppm (i.e., less than or equal to 0.084 ppm or 84 ppb based on 
data rounding conventions specified in appendix I of 40 CFR part 50) 
over the most recent three-year period at all monitors in an area and 
in its impacted downwind environs (See 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for 
further information). Such supporting data must meet a minimum data 
completeness requirement. The completeness requirement (specified in 
appendix I of 40 CFR part 50) for ozone data supporting a determination 
of attainment and a redesignation to attainment is met when the annual 
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater 
than 90 percent for the ozone seasons during the three-year period, 
with no single year with less than 75 percent data completeness during 
the ozone season.
    In the April 30, 2004, designation/classification rulemaking, the 
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area, including Jefferson County, was 
designated as subpart 1 nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. 
The designation was based on ozone data collected during the 2001-2003 
period.
    On July 31, 2006, the State of Ohio submitted a draft request for 
redesignation of Jefferson County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS based on ozone data collected in the Steubenville-Weirton WV-OH 
area during the 2003-2005 period. On October 3, 2006, the State of Ohio 
completed the ozone redesignation request by submitting documentation 
of the public hearing conducted by the State for the redesignation 
request and ozone maintenance plan. The information contained in the 
State's July 31, 2006, ozone redesignation request submittal was 
unchanged through the State's public review process (summarized in the 
October 3, 2006, submittal). The State of West Virginia has also 
submitted an ozone redesignation request for the West Virginia portion 
of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area (for Hancock and Brooke 
Counties). A separate proposed rule from EPA published on October 2, 
2006 (71 FR 57905), addresses this request.

III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment 
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA 
allows for redesignation provided that: (1) The Administrator 
determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS based on 
current air quality data; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the 
applicable state implementation plan for the area under section 110(k) 
of the CAA; (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in 
air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions 
resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP, Federal air 
pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable 
emission reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a 
maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section 175A 
of the CAA; and, (5) the state containing the area has met all 
requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the 
CAA.
    EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the General Preamble for 
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 on April 
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA provided further guidance on processing 
redesignation requests in the following documents:
    ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,'' Memorandum 
from Bill Laxton, June 18, 1990;
    ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 
Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
    ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
    ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
    ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to 
Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, 
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
    ``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation of Ozone and 
Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, 
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
    ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting 
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air

[[Page 714]]

Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum 
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, September 17, 1993;
    ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone 
and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting 
Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993;
    ``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas 
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D. 
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 
1994; and,
    ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and 
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.

IV. What Are EPA's Analyses of the State's Requests and What Are the 
Bases for EPA's Proposed Actions?

    EPA is proposing to: (1) Determine that Jefferson County has 
attained the 8-hour ozone standard; (2) approve the ozone maintenance 
plan for this County and the VOC and NOX MVEBs supported by 
the ozone maintenance plan; and, (3) approve the redesignation of this 
County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The bases for our 
proposed determination and approvals are as follows:
1. Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH Area Have 
Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
    Analyses of the attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS are conducted 
in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50 appendix I. These 
analyses use the most recent three complete, consecutive calendar years 
of quality-assured air quality monitoring data at all monitoring sites 
in the area and in its impacted downwind environs. To attain this 
standard, the average of the annual fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour 
average ozone concentrations measured and recorded at each monitor (the 
monitoring site's ozone design value) within the area and in its 
impacted downwind environs over the most recent 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 ozone 
standard is attained if the area's ozone design value \4\ is 0.084 ppm 
(84 ppb) or less. The data must be collected and 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The worst-case monitoring site-specific ozone design value 
in the area or in its impacted downwind environs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the July 31, 2006, ozone redesignation request, the Ohio 
EPA submitted summarized ozone monitoring data indicating the top four 
daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations for each monitoring site in 
the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area during the 2002-2005 period. These 
summarized worst-case ozone concentrations are part of the quality-
assured ozone data collected in this area and recorded in the AQS. The 
annual fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum concentrations for each year 
during the 2003-2005 period, along with the three-year averages, are 
summarized in Table 1 for Jefferson County, Ohio and Hancock County, 
West Virginia. All monitoring sites achieved at least 99% data 
completeness.

 Table 1.--Annual Fourth-High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations in Parts Per Million (ppm) for Jefferson
                                County, Ohio and Hancock County, West Virginia *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  County                           Monitoring site          2003      2004      2005     Average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County, Ohio....................  227 North 5h................     0.079  ........  ........  ........
                                            618 Logan...................  ........     0.071     0.083     0.078
Hancock County, West Virginia.............  Oak St. & Owin..............     0.077     0.073     0.075     0.075
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data for Hancock County was included in appendix A of the Ohio EPA's submission and is used in Table 1. The
  data table in the main body of the State's submission included data for Ohio County, West Virginia (part of
  the Wheeling area and not part of the Steubenville-Weirton area) rather than Hancock County, West Virginia.

    The monitoring site in Jefferson County was relocated to a site \1/
3\ mile from the original site after 2003 because Ohio EPA lost access 
to the original site. The new site meets all citing criteria described 
in 40 CFR 58 Appendix E. The original and final sites are sufficiently 
close to each other, and removed from sources of ozone precursors such 
that the two sites represent the same air quality. Therefore, the data 
from the two sites can be combined when calculating the three-year 
average ozone concentration in Table 1.
    The monitored ozone concentrations for 2003-2005 show that the 
entire Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area has attained the 8-hour ozone 
standard. The current three-year average (2003-2005) for Jefferson 
County, Ohio is 0.078 ppm. The current three-year average (2003-2005) 
for Hancock County, West Virginia is 0.075 ppm. The data collected at 
the Jefferson County and Hancock County, West Virginia monitoring sites 
show that the area satisfies the CAA requirement that the ozone 
standard must be attained at all sites in and around the ozone 
nonattainment area. The three-year ozone design value for the 
nonattainment area is less than 0.085 ppm. Furthermore, available (non-
quality assured) ozone monitoring data from 2006 indicates that this 
area continues to attain the ozone NAAQs.
    The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the West Virginia 
Department of Environmental Protection have committed to continue ozone 
monitoring in this area as part of the State's ozone maintenance plan. 
This commitment meets a redesignation requirement, in accordance with 
40 CFR part 58, that ozone monitoring will be continued to assure 
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. Furthermore, the 
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the West Virginia Department 
of Environmental Protection will consult with EPA prior to altering the 
existing

[[Page 715]]

monitoring network if changes become necessary in the future. The two 
states will continue to quality assure the data to meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR 58 and all other federal requirements. The data 
will be available in real time on the Ohio Environmental Protection 
Agency's Web site and will be entered into AQS on a timely basis and in 
accordance with federal guidelines.
    We find that the ozone monitoring data submitted by the States of 
Ohio and West Virginia provide an adequate demonstration that the 
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 
Therefore, we propose to determine that Jefferson County, Ohio, as part 
of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area, has attained the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS.
2. Jefferson County and the State of Ohio Have Met All Applicable 
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and This Area Has 
a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
    We have determined that Jefferson County and the State of Ohio have 
met all currently applicable SIP requirements for Jefferson County 
under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We have 
determined that the Ohio SIP meets the currently applicable SIP 
requirements under subpart 1 part D of title I of the CAA (requirements 
specific to basic ozone nonattainment areas). See section 
107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA. In addition, we have determined that all 
applicable requirements are approved into the Ohio SIP. See section 
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. In making these determinations, we 
determined the CAA requirements which are applicable to Jefferson 
County, and determined that the applicable portions of the SIP meeting 
these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. 
We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to currently 
applicable requirements of the CAA, which in this case are those CAA 
requirements applicable to Jefferson County at the time the State 
submitted a complete ozone redesignation request for this area, on 
October 3, 2006.
    a. Jefferson County has met all applicable requirements under 
section 110 and part D of the CAA. The September 4, 1992, Calcagni 
memorandum (see ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate 
Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air 
Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992) describes EPA's 
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. To qualify for 
redesignation to attainment under this interpretation, the state and 
the area must meet the relevant CAA requirements that apply at the time 
of the State's submittal of a complete redesignation request for the 
area. See also the September 17, 1993, Michael Shapiro memorandum, and 
66 FR 12459, 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 SIP elements and requirements include, but are not limited to, 
the following: (a) Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the 
State after reasonable public notice and a hearing; (b) provisions for 
establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor 
ambient air quality; (c) implementation of a source permit program; (d) 
provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and part D requirements (New Source 
Review (NSR)) for new sources or major source modifications; (e) 
criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, 
and reporting; (f) provisions for air quality modeling; and, (g) 
provisions for public and local agency participation.
    SIP requirements and elements are discussed in the following EPA 
documents: ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, September 4, 1992; ``State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,'' 
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 
Division, October 28, 1992; and ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to 
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum 
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, September 17, 
1993. See also other guidance documents listed above.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires SIPs to contain certain 
measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing 
to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, 
EPA required states to establish programs to address transport of air 
pollutants (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 when 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 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,

[[Page 716]]

1996); and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 
1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio 
ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and the Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).
    We believe that section 110 elements not linked to the area's 
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. 
Nonetheless, we also note that EPA has previously approved provisions 
in the Ohio SIP addressing section 110 elements under the 1-hour ozone 
standard. We have analyzed the Ohio SIP as codified in 40 CFR part 52, 
subpart KK and have determined that it is consistent with the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. The SIP, which has been 
adopted after reasonable public notice and hearing, contains 
enforceable emission limitations; requires monitoring, compiling, and 
analyzing ambient air quality data; requires preconstruction review of 
new major stationary sources and major modifications of existing 
sources; provisions for adequate funding, staff, and associated 
resources necessary to implement its requirements; requires stationary 
source emissions monitoring and reporting; and otherwise satisfies the 
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2).
    Part D SIP requirements: EPA has determined that the Ohio SIP meets 
applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA. Under part D, an 
area's classification (subpart 1, marginal, moderate, serious, severe, 
and extreme) indicates the requirements to which it will be subject. 
Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 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 depending on the 
area's nonattainment classification.
    Part D, subpart 1 requirements: For purposes of evaluating this 
redesignation request, the applicable subpart 1 part D requirements for 
all nonattainment areas are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9) and 
176. A thorough discussion of the requirements of section 172 can be 
found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 
13498). See also 68 FR 4852-4853, a notice of proposed rulemaking for 
an ozone redesignation for the St. Louis area, for a discussion of 
section 172 requirements.
    No requirements for 8-hour ozone under part D of the CAA came due 
for Jefferson County prior to the State's submittal (October 3, 2006) 
of a complete ozone redesignation request for this area. For example, 
the requirement for an ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in 
section 172(c)(1), is not yet applicable, nor are the requirements for 
Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) and Reasonably Available 
Control Technology (RACT) (section 172(c)(1)), Reasonable Further 
Progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2)), and attainment plan and RFP 
contingency measures (section 172(c)(9)). Therefore, none of the part D 
requirements are applicable to Jefferson County for purposes of 
redesignation.
    Section 176 conformity requirements: Section 176(c) of the CAA 
requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that 
Federally supported or funded activities, including highway projects, 
conform to the air planning goals in the applicable SIP. The 
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, 
programs, and projects developed, funded, or approved under Title 23 
U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well 
as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (general 
conformity). State conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with 
Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement 
and enforceability, which EPA promulgated pursuant to CAA requirements.
    In addition to the fact that part D requirements did not become due 
prior to Ohio's submission of a complete ozone redesignation request 
for Jefferson County, and, therefore, are not believed by the EPA to be 
applicable for redesignation purposes in this case, EPA similarly 
believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements 
as not applying for purposes of evaluating the ozone redesignation 
request under section 107(d) of the CAA. Further, EPA believes that it 
is reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements as not applying 
for purposes of evaluating the ozone redesignation request under 
section 107(d) of the CAA because state conformity rules are still 
required after redesignation of areas to attainment of a NAAQS and 
Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been 
approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001). See also 60 FR 
62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida).
    EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not 
comply with the requirement that a New Source Review (NSR) program be 
approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates 
maintenance of the standard without part D NSR, since Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements will apply after 
redesignation. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in 
a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New Source Review 
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' Ohio 
is not relying on reductions from NSR to attain the ozone standard, and 
so the State need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to 
approval of the redesignation request. The State's PSD program will 
become effective in Jefferson County upon redesignation to attainment. 
See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 
1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 
1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); Grand 
Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).
    EPA approved Ohio's general and transportation conformity SIPs on 
March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646) and May 30, 2000 (65 FR 34395), 
respectively. In its July 31, 2006 submission Ohio included the on-
highway motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) for 2009 and 2018 that 
Table 2 outlines. EPA reviewed the budgets for the West Virginia 
portion of the Steubenville-Weirton area on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 
57905).

     Table 2.--2009 and 2018 Final MVEBs for Jefferson County, Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      VOC         NOX
                 Inventory year                    emissions   emissions
                                                     (tpd)       (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 projected on-road mobile source emissions..        2.29        3.57
2009 safety margin allocated to MVEBs...........        0.34        0.53
2009 MVEBs......................................        2.63        4.10
2018 projected on-road mobile source emissions..        1.19        1.45

[[Page 717]]

2018 safety margin allocated to MVEBs...........        0.18        0.22
2018 MVEBs......................................        1.37        1.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The area must use the motor vehicle emissions budgets from the 
maintenance plan in any conformity determination that is effective on 
or after the effective date of the maintenance plan approval. We 
conclude that Jefferson County and the State of Ohio have satisfied all 
applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA to the 
extent that these requirements apply for purposes of reviewing the 
State's ozone redesignation request for this area.
    b. Jefferson County has a fully approved applicable SIP under 
section 110(k) of the CAA. EPA has fully approved the Ohio SIP for 
Jefferson County under section 110(k) of the CAA for all applicable 
requirements. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a 
redesignation request (See the September 4, 1992 John Calcagni 
memorandum, page 3, Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 
Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 
426 (6th Cir. 2001)) plus any additional measures it may approve in 
conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 
2003). Since the passage of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has adopted and 
submitted, and EPA has fully approved, provisions addressing the 
various required SIP elements applicable to Jefferson County for 
purposes of redesignation. No Jefferson County SIP provisions are 
currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or partially approved. 
As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not 
connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to the 
area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for 
purposes of reviewing the State's redesignation request. EPA has also 
noted that it may conclude that the section 110 SIP submission approved 
under the 1-hour standard will be adequate for purposes of attaining 
and maintaining the 8-hour standard. EPA also believes that since the 
part D requirements for the eight-hour ozone standard did not become 
due prior to Ohio's submission of a final, complete redesignation 
request for Jefferson County, they also are not applicable requirements 
for purposes of redesignation.
3. The Air Quality Improvement in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH Area 
Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting 
From Implementation of the SIP, Federal Air Pollution Control 
Regulations, and Other Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions
    In making this demonstration, the States of West Virginia \5\ and 
Ohio have documented changes in VOC and NOX emissions from 
all anthropogenic (man-made or man-based) sources in the Steubenville-
Weirton, WV-OH area occurring between 2002, an ozone standard violation 
year, and 2004, one of the years in which the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-
OH area has recorded attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. The 
States have also discussed permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions that have occurred elsewhere in these two States and in 
other upwind areas that have contributed to the air quality improvement 
in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. Table 3 summarizes the VOC and 
NOX emissions totals from the anthropogenic sources in 2002 
and 2004 for the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area.\6\ From the Table, 
it can be seen that VOC emissions have decreased slightly between 2002 
and 2004, whereas NOX emissions have significantly declined 
between 2002 and 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ West Virginia submitted a separate ozone redesignation 
request for its portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. The 
West Virginia redesignation request is being addressed in a separate 
EPA proposed rule (71 CFR 57905). West Virginia did supply emissions 
data for the Steubenville-Weirton area to the State of Ohio for 
inclusion in Ohio's ozone redesignation request. The West Virginia 
data summarized here are those data provided to the State of Ohio, 
and may differ from those summarized in the West Virginia ozone 
redesignation request. We have noticed minor differences in the two 
sets of data, but emphasize that the differences are minor and 
primarily due to rounding differences induced by how the two States 
have handled the summarized data and by how various EPA reviewers 
have handled and rounded the data in the proposed rules.
    \6\ Minor differences exist between the emissions summarized in 
Table 3 and those summarized by the State of Ohio in its July 31, 
2006, ozone redesignation request. For purposes of maintaining 
significant figure consistency and for readability, we have rounded 
all emissions to one significant decimal place. The State of Ohio 
has not maintained this consistency, leading to some differences in 
individual category emissions and in emissions totals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The States of Ohio and West Virginia conclude that the differences 
in the 2002 and 2004 emissions are due primarily to the implementation 
of permanent and enforceable emission control requirements.

  Table 3.--Total Anthropogenic VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH Area
                                                 [Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          County                             Point       Area     Non-road   On-road     Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         2002 Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County, Ohio...................................        1.1        3.1        1.0        4.2        9.4
Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia...............        6.7        4.5        1.5        3.2       15.9
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
    2002 Total...........................................        7.8        7.6        2.5        7.4       25.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 718]]

                                         2004 Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County, Ohio...................................        1.2        3.1        0.9        3.6        8.8
Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virgina................        4.8        4.6        1.5        2.6       13.5
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
    2004 Total...........................................        6.0        7.7        2.4        6.2       22.3
    Difference (2002-2004) \7\...........................        1.8       -0.1        0.1        1.2        3.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              2002 Nitrogen Oxides
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County, Ohio...................................      190.0        0.2        2.4        6.3      198.9
Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia...............        5.9        4.6        4.3        4.3       19.1
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
    2002 Total...........................................      195.9        4.8        6.7       10.6      218.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              2004 Nitrogen Oxides
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson County, Ohio...................................      154.7        0.2        2.3        5.4      162.6
Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia...............        4.5        4.8        5.3        3.6       18.2
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
    2004 Total...........................................      159.2        5.0        7.6        9.0      180.8
    Difference (2002-2004)...............................       36.7       -0.2       -0.9        1.6       37.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The significant decline in NOX emissions in this area 
between 2002 and 2004 occurred primarily at Electric Generating Units 
(EGU) as the result of the implementation of the States' NOX 
emission control rules (resulting from the implementation of EPA's 
NOX SIP call and acid rain emission controls under title IV 
of the CAA). NOX reductions also resulted from tighter 
federal standards on new vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Positive differences indicate a decrease in emissions over 
time from 2002 to 2004. Negative differences indicate emissions were 
increasing over time, primarily as the result of emission changes 
from source growth exceeding the impacts of implemented emission 
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We concur with the States that NOX emissions have been 
significantly lowered in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. We also 
concur with the States that these emission reductions have contributed 
to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the Steubenville-Weirton, 
WV-OH area. Therefore, the State of Ohio has met this criterion for 
redesignation of Jefferson County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone 
standard.
    Besides implementation of the NOX emission control 
rules, additional implemented, or soon to be implemented, emission 
control rules include several Federal rules: (1) Tier II emission 
standards for vehicles and gasoline sulfur 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 NOX emissions throughout the States of Ohio and 
West Virginia and will contribute to future emission reductions in 
these States.
    The State of Ohio commits to continuing the existing VOC and 
NOX emission controls after the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH 
area is redesignated to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.
4. Jefferson County Has a Fully Approvable Ozone Maintenance Plan 
Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA
    In conjunction with its request to redesignate Jefferson County to 
attainment of the ozone NAAQS, Ohio submitted a SIP revision request to 
provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Jefferson County 
and in the entire Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area through 2018, 
exceeding the minimum 10 year maintenance period required by the CAA.
    a. What Is Required in an Ozone Maintenance Plan? Section 175A of 
the CAA sets forth the required elements of air quality maintenance 
plans for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment 
of a NAAQS. Under section 175A, a maintenance plan must demonstrate 
continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years 
after the Administrator approves the redesignation to attainment. Eight 
years after the redesignation, the State must submit a revised 
maintenance plan which demonstrates that maintenance of the standard 
will continue for 10 years following the initial 10 year maintenance 
period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the 
maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, with a 
schedule for implementation, as EPA deems necessary, to assure prompt 
correction of any future NAAQS violations. The September 4, 1992 John 
Calcagni memorandum provides additional guidance on the content of 
maintenance plans. An ozone maintenance plan should, at minimum, 
address the following items: (1) The attainment VOC and 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.
    b. What Are the Attainment Emission Inventories for Jefferson 
County? Ohio EPA prepared comprehensive VOC and NOX emission 
inventories for Jefferson County, including EGU and non-EGU point 
(significant stationary sources), other (smaller and widely-distributed 
stationary sources that are also called area sources), Marine, 
Aircraft, and Rail mobile (MAR), mobile on-road, and mobile non-road 
sources for 2002 (the base year). To develop the attainment year (2004) 
and projected maintenance

[[Page 719]]

years (2009 and 2018) emissions, the Ohio EPA projected the 2002 
emissions applying various source category-specific growth factors and 
emission control factors.
    The State has thoroughly documented how the 2002 base year 
emissions were derived. The following summarizes the procedures and 
sources of data used by the Ohio EPA to derive the base year emissions.
    i. Point Sources. The primary source of point source information 
was facility-specific information collected annually by the State for 
sources covered by Title V source permits. This information includes 
emissions, process rates, operating schedules, emissions control data, 
and other relevant information. The State also used emissions data 
provided by EPA's EGU emission inventory, maintained to support the 
NOX SIP call emissions trading program and the acid rain 
control program. The sources included in the 2002 point source 
inventory were identified using Ohio's Title V STARS database. The 
emissions included in this database are facility-reported actual 
emissions.
    Ohio EPA defines point source process emissions as those that occur 
at a Title V facility with an identifiable stationary stack or vent. 
Point source emissions not emitted from discrete stacks or vents are 
defined to be fugitive emissions. 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) in National Emissions Inventory Input Format (NIF) 3.0 format. 
LADCO imported and processed the NIF files in the Emissions Modeling 
System (EMS) and applied temporal and spatial profiles to calculate 
July weekday emissions rates. The Jefferson County emissions derived 
from this set of emissions data were split into EGU emissions and non-
EGU emissions for inclusion in the base year emissions inventory used 
to support the Jefferson County ozone redesignation request.
    ii. Area (Other) Sources. Area sources are those sources which are 
generally small, numerous, and have not been inventoried as specific 
point, mobile, or biogenic sources. The emissions for these sources are 
calculated and grouped by source type and are estimated using various 
surrogates, such as population, energy usage, estimates of employees in 
various occupational groups and facility-types. The area source 
emissions are typically defined at the county level.
    To estimate the area source emissions, Ohio EPA has either used 
published Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) emissions 
estimation methodologies or other methodologies typically used by other 
states. Area source categories include: Various stationary combustion 
sources (not including the EGU sources included in the point source 
portion of the emissions inventory); human cremation; agricultural 
pesticides; architectural surface coatings; auto body refinishing; 
consumer and commercial solvents; degreasing and solvent cleaning (not 
included in point source emissions); fuel marketing; graphic arts (the 
emissions from the smaller facilities not included in the Title V STARS 
database); hospital sterilizers; small industry surface coating; small 
industry rubber and plastics coating; landfills; portable fuel 
containers; traffic markings; and Privately Owned Treatment Works 
(POTWs). The State has documented the data sources and emission factors 
or calculation procedures used for each of these area source 
categories.
    iii. Non-Road Mobile Sources. The non-road mobile source emissions 
inventory was generated regionally by running EPA's National Mobile 
Inventory Model (NMIM). The NMIM output was converted to the NIF format 
and submitted to LADCO for processing in the EMS to obtain spatially 
and temporally allocated summer emission rates. The basic 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 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 the spatial range of each vessel type.
    Locomotive activity was divided into various rail categories: Class 
I operations; Class II/III operations; passenger trains; consumer 
lines; and yard operations. Since Class I operations are expected to be 
the most significant rail operations in most areas, including Jefferson 
County, operators of Class I operations were queried for activity and 
emissions-related information for each railroad line. Class I activity 
levels were provided by county in terms of ton-miles of freight 
movement and estimated fuel consumption. This approach provided for 
more specific estimates of emissions by railroad line. Class I 
railroads, however, could not provide information about their switching 
rail activity. Class II/III emissions were based on national fuel 
consumption and per employee fuel consumption estimates.
    EPA provided the aircraft emission estimates based on Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) published Landing and Take-Off (LTO) 
rates by engine type for each airline and major airport in the State of 
Ohio. The LTO-engine 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), which calculates aircraft-specific emissions.
    LADCO processed all of the MAR emissions data through the EMS to 
calculate July 2002 summer day emissions for VOC and NOX.
    v. On-Road Mobile Sources. A regional transportation model operated 
by the Brooke, Hancock, Jefferson Transportation Study (BHJTS), West 
Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT), and Ohio Department of 
Transportation (Ohio DOT) was used to estimate traffic levels, vehicle 
age and type distributions, vehicle speeds, and other emissions-related 
vehicle parameters for the roadways in Jefferson County and elsewhere 
in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. This vehicle travel 
information, along with the MOBILE 6.2 vehicle emission factor model, 
was used to estimate mobile source VOC and NOX emissions for 
Jefferson County and the entire Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area.
    vi. Projected Emissions for the Attainment Year. Ambient air 
quality data showed that the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area met the 
8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2004. Ohio EPA projected point source emissions 
from the 2002 baseline to 2004 with the statewide EGU NOX 
budgets from the Ohio NOX rule. Mobile source emission 
projections were based on the MOBILE6.2 model. Ohio EPA also used 
growth and control files for point, area, and non-road categories that 
LADCO developed in determining 2004 emissions of NOX and 
VOCs for Jefferson County. The State of West Virginia estimated 2004 
VOC and NOX

[[Page 720]]

emissions for its portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. The 
estimated 2004 emissions have been compared to the 2002 emissions to 
demonstrate the basis for the improved air quality in the Steubenville-
Weirton, WV-OH area. See Table 3 above for the 2004 attainment level 
emissions.
    c. Demonstration of Maintenance. As part of the July 31, 2006, 
redesignation request submittal, Ohio EPA included a requested revision 
to the Ohio SIP to incorporate an ozone maintenance plan for Jefferson 
County. This plan demonstrates maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
through 2018 by documenting current and projected VOC and 
NOX emissions and showing that future emissions of VOC and 
NOX will remain at or below the attainment year emission 
levels. A maintenance demonstration need not be based on 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 State of Ohio and the State of West Virginia projected the VOC 
and NOX emissions in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area 
for 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 this area. For Jefferson County, Ohio EPA used source growth 
estimates provided by LADCO along with mobile source growth estimates 
generated using the regional transportation model and MOBILE 6.2 to 
project the Jefferson County VOC and NOX emissions. The 
methods used by the State of West Virginia are described in West 
Virginia's ozone redesignation request (reviewed by EPA on October 2, 
2006 (71 FR 57905)).
    Table 4 summarizes the VOC emissions projected to occur in 
Jefferson County, Ohio and in Hancock and Brooke Counties, West 
Virginia during the demonstrated ozone maintenance period. Similarly, 
Table 5 summarizes the NOX emissions projected to occur in 
the same area during the demonstrated ozone maintenance period. The 
State of Ohio and the State of West Virginia chose 2018 as a projection 
year to meet the 10-year maintenance demonstration requirement, 
allowing several years for EPA to complete the redesignation rulemaking 
process. The States 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.--Projected VOC Emissions in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH Area
                                                   [tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2004         2009         2018        Safety
                        Source sector                          Attainment    Interim    Maintenance     margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Jefferson County, Ohio VOC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU Point...................................................          0.9          1.0          1.0  ...........
Non-EGU Point...............................................          0.2          0.2          0.2  ...........
Area (Other)................................................          3.1          2.9          2.9  ...........
Non-Road Mobile.............................................          0.9          0.8          0.6  ...........
On-Road Mobile..............................................          3.6         *2.6         *1.4  ...........
Marine-Air-Railroad.........................................          0.1          0.1          0.1  ...........
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total Jefferson County..................................          8.8          7.6          6.2        **2.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia VOC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU Point...................................................            0            0            0  ...........
Non-EGU Point...............................................          4.8          4.3          5.3  ...........
Area (Other)................................................          4.6          4.5          5.2  ...........
Non-Road Mobile (MAR included)..............................          1.5          1.2          1.0  ...........
On-Road Mobile..............................................          2.6         *2.0         *1.0
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total Hancock and Brooke Counties.......................         13.5         12.0         12.5        **1.0
    Total Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH.......................         22.3         19.6         18.7       **3.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 15 percent mobile source budget increase as a safety margin. Actual projected 2018 on-road mobile
  source VOC emissions in Jefferson County are 1.19 tons per day. In Brooke and Hancock Counties, the actual
  projected 2018 on-road mobile source VOC are 0.88 tons per day.
** Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions.

                    Table 5.--Projected NOX Emissions in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH Area
                                                   [tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2004         2009         2018        Safety
                        Source sector                          Attainment    Interim    Maintenance     margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Jefferson County, Ohio NOX Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU Point...................................................        148.8         60.8         41.0  ...........
Non-EGU Point...............................................          5.9          5.6          5.4  ...........
Area (Other)................................................          0.2          0.2          0.2  ...........
Non-Road Mobile.............................................          0.7          0.6          0.3  ...........
On-Road Mobile..............................................          5.4         *4.1         *1.7  ...........
Marine-Air-Railroad.........................................          1.5          1.4          1.3  ...........
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total Jefferson County..................................        162.5         72.7         49.9      **112.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 721]]

                            Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia NOX Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU Point...................................................            0            0            0  ...........
Non-EGU Point...............................................          4.5          5.1          5.6  ...........
Area (Other)................................................          4.8          4.9          5.2  ...........
Non-Road Mobile (MAR included)..............................          5.3          3.8          3.2  ...........
On-Road Mobile..............................................          3.6         *2.8         *1.2  ...........
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total Hancock and Brooke Counties.......................         18.2         16.6         15.2        **3.0
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH.......................        180.7         89.3         65.1      **115.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 15 percent mobile source budget increase as a safety margin. Actual projected 2018 on-road mobile
  source NOX emissions in Jefferson County are 1.45 tons per day. Actual projected 2018 on-road mobile source
  NOX emissions in Hancock and Brooke Counties are 0.94 tons per day.
** Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions.

    The Ohio EPA also notes that the State's EGU NOX 
emissions control rules stemming from EPA's NOX SIP call and 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), to be implemented beyond 2006, will 
further lower NOX emissions in upwind areas, resulting in 
decreased ozone and ozone precursor transport into Jefferson County and 
the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. This will also support 
maintenance of the ozone standard in this area, which particularly 
benefits from the NOX SIP call and CAIR. These two 
regulations focus on utility emissions in the Eastern United States and 
impose a permanent cap on overall emissions from affected sources. This 
cap is likely to minimize growth of this very important component of 
emissions in the Steubenville-Weirton area.
    The emission projections for Jefferson County and the Steubenville-
Weirton, WV-OH area as a whole coupled with the expected impacts of the 
States' EGU NOX rules and CAIR lead to the conclusion that 
Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH 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 Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH 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 can be maintained in 
Jefferson County and in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. We 
believe that this is especially likely given the expected impacts of 
the NOX SIP call and CAIR. As noted by Ohio EPA, this 
conclusion is further supported by the fact that other states in the 
eastern portion of the United States are also expected to further 
reduce regional NOX emissions through implementation of 
their ozone NOX emission control rules for EGUs and other 
NOX sources through the implementation of the NOX 
SIP call and CAIR.
    d. Contingency Plan. The contingency plan provisions of the CAA are 
designed to result in prompt correction or prevention of violations of 
the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation of an area to attainment 
of the NAAQS. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan 
include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that 
the State will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that might 
occur after redesignation. The maintenance plan must identify the 
contingency measures to be considered for possible adoption, a schedule 
and procedure for adoption and implementation of the selected 
contingency measures, and a time limit for action by the State. The 
State should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine 
when the contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The 
maintenance plan must include a requirement that the State will 
implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant(s) that 
were included in the SIP before the redesignation of the area to 
attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
    As required by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio has adopted a 
contingency plan to address a possible future ozone air quality problem 
in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. The contingency plan has two 
levels of actions/responses depending on whether a violation of the 8-
hour ozone standard is only threatened (Warning Level Response) or has 
actually occurred or appears to be very imminent (Action Level 
Response).
    A Warning Level Response will be triggered whenever an annual (1-
year) fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone concentration of 88 ppb occurs 
within the ozone maintenance area (within the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-
OH area). A Warning Level Response will consist of a study to determine 
whether the ozone value indicates a trend toward higher ozone 
concentrations and/or whether emissions appear to be increasing. The 
study will evaluate whether the trend, if any, is likely to continue 
and, if so, the control measures necessary to reverse the trend. This 
would involve taking into consideration ease and timing for 
implementation, as well as economic and social considerations. 
Implementation of necessary controls in response to a Warning Level 
Response will take place as expeditiously as possible, but in no event 
later than 12 months from the conclusion of the most recent ozone 
season.
    An Action Level Response will be triggered whenever a two-year 
averaged annual fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone concentration of 85 
ppb or greater occurs within the maintenance area. A violation of the 
8-hour ozone standard (three-year average fourth-high value of 85 ppb 
or greater) will also prompt an Action Level Response. In the event 
that an Action Level Response is triggered and is not due to an 
exceptional event, malfunction, or noncompliance with a source permit 
condition or rule requirement, Ohio EPA will determine the additional 
emission control measures needed to assure future attainment of the 
ozone NAAQS. Emission control measures that can be implemented in a 
short time will be selected in order to be in place within

[[Page 722]]

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 that emission control measure is determined 
to be sufficient to address the upper trend in peak ozone 
concentrations, additional local measures may be unnecessary. Ohio EPA 
will submit to the EPA an analysis to demonstrate that the proposed 
emission control measures are adequate to reverse the upward trend in 
peak ozone concentrations and to maintain the 8-hour ozone standard in 
the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. The selection of emission control 
measures will be based on cost-effectiveness, emission reduction 
potential, economic and social considerations, or other factors that 
the Ohio EPA and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 
(WVDEP) deem to be appropriate. Selected emission control measures will 
be subjected to public review and the States will seek public input 
prior to selecting new emission control measures.
    The State of Ohio ozone redesignation request lists the following 
possible emission control measures as contingency measures in the ozone 
maintenance portion of the State's submittal:
     Lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline program;
     Tighten RACT on existing sources covered by U.S. EPA 
Control Technique Guidleines issued in response to the 1990 CAA;
     Extension of Reasonably Available Control Techniques 
(RACT) requirements to include source categories previously excluded. 
New VOC RACT rules could be adopted for the following source 
categories:

--Consumer products
--Architectural and industrial maintenance coatings
--Stage I gasoline dispensing facilities (including pressure valves)
--Automobile refinishing
--Cold cleaner degreasers
--Portable fuel containers
--Synthetic organic compound manufacturing
--Organic compound batch processes
--Wood manufacturing
--Industrial wastewater
--Aerospace industry
--Ship building
--Bakeries
--Plastic parts coating
--Volatile organic liquid storage
--Industrial solvent cleaning
--Offset lithography
--Industrial surface coating; and,
--Other sources with VOC emissions greater than 50 tons per year;

     Revision of new source permitting requirements to require 
more stringent emissions control technology and/or greater emissions 
offsets;
     NOX RACT, with the following being potential 
source categories covered by such RACT requirements:

--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;

     Transportation measures such as trip reduction programs, 
traffic flow and transit improvements. The selected transportation 
measure would need to achieve at least a half a percent reduction in 
actual area wide VOC emissions.
     Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit programs for fleet 
vehicle operations.
     Require VOC or NOX emissions offsets for new 
and modified major and/or minor sources.
     Increase the ratio of emissions offsets required for new 
sources.
     Require VOC or NOX controls on new minor 
sources (less than 100 tons).
    No contingency measure will be implemented without the State 
providing the opportunity for full public participation and review.
    e. Provisions for a Future Update of the Ozone Maintenance Plan. As 
required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, the State commits to submit to 
the EPA an update of the ozone maintenance plan eight years after 
redesignation of Jefferson County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS. The updated maintenance plan will provide for maintenance of the 
8-hour ozone standard in Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton, 
WV-OH area for an additional 10 years beyond the period covered by the 
initial ozone maintenance plan.
    We find Ohio's ozone maintenance demonstration and contingency plan 
acceptable.

V. Has Ohio Adopted Acceptable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the 
End Year of the Ozone Maintenance Plans Which Can Be Used To Support 
Conformity Determinations?

A. How Are the Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets Developed and What Are 
the Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Jefferson County?

    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 on-road 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 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.
    When reviewing SIP revisions containing MVEBs, including attainment 
strategies, rate-of-progress

[[Page 723]]

plans, and maintenance plans, EPA must affirmatively find that the 
MVEBs are ``adequate'' for use in determining transportation 
conformity. Once EPA finds the submitted MVEBs to be adequate for 
transportation conformity purposes, the MVEBs are used by state and 
Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation 
projects conform to the SIPs as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. 
EPA's substantive criteria for determining the adequacy of MVEBs are 
specified in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
    EPA's process of determining adequacy of MVEBs consists of three 
basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2) 
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEBs during a 
public comment period; and, (3) making a finding of adequacy. The 
process of determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was 
initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999, guidance, ``Conformity 
Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court 
Decision.'' This guidance was finalized in the Transportation 
Conformity Rule Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone and 
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and 
Miscellaneous Rule Amendments--Response to Court Decision and 
Additional Rule Change'' published on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA 
follows this guidance and rulemaking in making its adequacy 
determinations.
    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. In this notice, EPA is 
reviewing the adequacy of the Jefferson County motor vehicle emission 
budgets as part of the review and proposal on the overall ozone 
maintenance plan. The State of Ohio had previously requested parallel 
processing and the expediency of this review process is best suited to 
following the 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2) mechanism.
    Ohio and West Virginia are managing mobile source emissions in the 
Steubenville-Weirton area by establishing separate MVEBs for their 
respective portions of this area. EPA has proposed approval of the 
NOX and VOC MVEBs for the West Virginia portion of the 
Steubenville-Weirton area in the Federal Register (71 FR 57905) on 
October 2, 2006. The Jefferson County ozone maintenance plan contains 
VOC and NOX MVEBs for 2009 and 2018. EPA has reviewed these 
MVEBs for Jefferson County and finds that they meet the adequacy 
criteria in the Transportation Conformity Rule. Furthermore, EPA, 
through this rulemaking, is proposing to approve the MVEBs for use to 
determine transportation conformity in Jefferson County. EPA has 
determined that the budgets are consistent with the control measures 
and future emissions projected in the SIP and that Jefferson County and 
the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area 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. Table 2 contains the 2009 
and 2018 VOC and NOX MVEBs for Jefferson County. Ohio EPA 
decided to include 15 percent safety margins in the MVEBs to provide 
for mobile source growth not anticipated in the projected 2018 
emissions.
    Ohio EPA has demonstrated that Jefferson County and the 
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
with mobile source emissions at the levels of the MVEBs since total 
source emissions, even with the increased mobile source emissions, will 
remain under the attainment year levels in both Jefferson County and 
the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton area.

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 4 and 5 above, Jefferson County VOC and 
NOX emissions are projected to have safety margins of 2.6 
tons per day for VOC and 112.6 tons per day for NOX in 2018 
(the differences between the 2004, attainment year, and 2018 VOC and 
NOX emissions for all sources in Jefferson County).
    The MVEBs requested by Ohio EPA contain safety margins (selected by 
the State) significantly smaller than the safety margins reflected in 
the total emissions for Jefferson County. The State is not requesting 
allocation of the entire available safety margins actually reflected in 
the demonstration of maintenance. Therefore, even though the State is 
requesting MVEBs that exceed the projected on-road mobile source 
emissions for 2018 contained in the demonstration of maintenance, the 
increase in on-road mobile source emissions considered for 
transportation conformity purposes is well within the safety margins of 
the ozone maintenance demonstration.

C. Are the MVEBs Approvable?

    The VOC and NOX MVEBs for Jefferson County including the 
additional safety margin are approvable because they maintain the total 
emissions for Jefferson County at or below the attainment year emission 
inventory levels, as required by the transportation conformity 
regulations.

VI. What Are the Effects of EPA's Proposed Actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request would change the designation 
of Jefferson County for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 
81, from nonattainment to attainment. It would also incorporate into 
the Ohio SIP a plan for maintaining the ozone NAAQS through 2018. The 
maintenance plan includes a list of potential contingency measures to 
remedy possible future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It 
establishes NOX MVEBs of 4.10 tons per day and 1.67 tons per 
day for 2009 and 2018, respectively. The plan establishes VOC MVEBs of 
2.63 tons per day and 1.37 tons per day for 2009 and 2018, 
respectively.

VII. 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.).

[[Page 724]]

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: December 21, 2006.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
 [FR Doc. E6-22617 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P