Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2006-1022-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Proposed Approval of the Youngstown Ohio 8-hour Ozone Redesignation and Maintenance Plan
Posted Date: 2007-04-18T04:00Z

[Federal Register: April 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 74)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 19435-19447]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18ap07-13]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-1022; FRL-8301-7]

 
Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of the Youngstown Area to 
Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On February 15, 2007, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 
(Ohio EPA), submitted a request for a redesignation of its portion of 
the Youngstown area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), and a request for EPA approval of an 
ozone maintenance plan for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, 
Ohio. The State public hearing on the submittal was held on January 9, 
2007.
    EPA is proposing to determine that the Youngstown area has attained 
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA believes that the State's ozone maintenance 
plan for the area is acceptable and, in conjunction with projected 
emissions in the Pennsylvania portion of the area (Mercer County), will 
provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in these Counties 
through 2018. EPA is proposing approval of the State's request to 
redesignate Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio to 
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve 
the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides 
(NOX) Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for Mahoning, 
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio for purposes of transportation 
conformity determinations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 18, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-1022, by one of the following methods:
      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

[[Page 19436]]

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois. Such deliveries are only 
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation, and 
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information. The Regional Office's official hours of operation are 
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-1022. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
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. For 
additional instructions on submitting comments, go to section I of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
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. 
We recommend that you telephone Patricia Morris, Environmental 
Scientist, at (312) 353-8656, before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Morris, Environmental 
Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8656, morris.patricia@epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' Is used, we mean the EPA. This supplementary 
information section is arranged as follows:

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?
III. What Is the Background for These Actions?
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
V. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request and What Is the 
Basis for EPA's Proposed Actions?
VI. Has Ohio Adopted Acceptable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 
the Ozone Maintenance Plan Which Can Be Used To Support Conformity 
Determinations?
VII. What Action Is EPA Taking?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?

    We are proposing to take several related actions for Mahoning, 
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio. First, we are proposing to 
determine that the interstate Youngstown area (officially, the 
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon PA-OH area as defined for 8-hour ozone 
designation purposes) has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Second, we 
are proposing to approve Ohio's ozone maintenance plan for Mahoning, 
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties as a requested revision to the Ohio 
State Implementation Plan (SIP). The maintenance plan is designed to 
keep the area in attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 11 
years, through 2018. Thirdly, we are proposing to find that the Ohio 
portion of this area (Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties), has 
met the requirements for redesignation to attainment of the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 
Fourth, as supported by, and consistent with, the ozone maintenance 
plan, we are also proposing to approve the 2009 and 2018 VOC and 
NOX MVEBs for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties 
for transportation conformity determination purposes.
    These proposed actions pertain to the designations of Mahoning, 
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 
to the emission controls in these counties related to the attainment 
and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If you own or operate a VOC 
or NOX emissions source in these counties or live in these 
counties, this proposed rule may impact or apply to you. It may also 
impact you if you are involved in transportation planning or 
implementation of emission controls in this area. It may also impact 
you if you breathe air which has passed through the Youngstown area, or 
if you are concerned with clean air, human health or the environment.

III. What Is the Background for These Actions?

A. General Background

    In EPA's April 30, 2004, rulemaking establishing designations and 
classifications for the 8-hour ozone standard, EPA designated the 
Youngstown area as subpart 1 nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone 
standard. EPA based the designation on ozone data collected during the 
2001-2003 period.
    On December 4, 2006, the State of Ohio submitted a request for 
redesignation of Mahoning, Trumbull,

[[Page 19437]]

and Columbiana Counties to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based 
on ozone data collected in these counties and Mercer County, 
Pennsylvania during the 2004-2006 period. On January 9, 2007, the State 
of Ohio held a public hearing on the ozone redesignation request and 
ozone maintenance plan. Based on a February 15, 2007, submittal from 
the State, all information contained in the State's December 4, 2006, 
ozone redesignation request submittal was unchanged through the State's 
public review process.

B. What Is the Impact of the December 22, 2006, United States Court of 
Appeals Decision Regarding EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule?

1. Summary of Court Decision
    On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-
hour Ozone Standard (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South Coast Air 
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F. 3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The 
Court held that certain provisions of EPA's Phase I Rule were 
inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The Court 
rejected EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in 
nonattainment areas under Subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2 of Title I, 
part D of the Act. The Court also held that EPA improperly failed to 
retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the 
anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment area 
New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area's 1-hour 
nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour 
severe or extreme nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be implemented 
pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the 
contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward 
attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS; 
and (4) certain conformity requirements for certain types of Federal 
actions. The Court upheld EPA's authority to revoke the 1-hour standard 
provided there were adequate anti-backsliding provisions.
    This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the 
Court's ruling on this redesignation action. For the reasons set forth 
below, EPA does not believe that the Court's ruling alters any 
requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude 
redesignation, and does not prevent EPA from finalizing this 
redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's decision, as it currently 
stands or as it may be modified based upon any petition for rehearing 
that has been filed, imposes no impediment to moving forward with 
redesignation of this area to attainment, because in either 
circumstance redesignation is appropriate under the relevant 
redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding 
redesignation requests.
2. Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
    With respect to the 8-hour standard, the court's ruling rejected 
EPA's reasons for classifying areas under Subpart 1 for the 8-hour 
standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. Consequently, it is 
possible that this area could, during a remand to EPA, be reclassified 
under Subpart 2. although any future decision by EPA to classify this 
area under subpart 2 might trigger additional future requirements for 
the area, EPA believes that this does not mean that redesignation 
cannot now go forward. This belief is based upon (1) EPA's longstanding 
policy of evaluating redesignation requirements in accordance with the 
requirements due at the time the request was submitted; and (2) 
consideration of the inequity of applying retroactively any 
requirements that might be applied in the future.
    First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the 
Youngstown area was classified under Subpart 1 and was obligated to 
meet the Subpart 1 requirements. Under EPA's longstanding 
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, to qualify 
for redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must 
meet only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the 
submittal of a complete redesignation request. September 4, 1992 
Calcagni memorandum (``Procedures for Processing Requests to 
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, 
Director, Air Quality Management Division). See also Michael Shapiro 
Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 
1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 
3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004), which upheld this interpretation. See, e.g., 
also 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. 
Louis).
    Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new 
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was 
submitted. The DC Circuit has recognized the inequity in such 
retroactive rulemaking. See Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C. 
Cir. 2002), in which the DC Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling 
refusing to make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that 
was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have 
resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. The 
Court stated: ``Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment 
determination within the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed 
solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would 
likely impose large costs on the States, which would face fines and 
suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even 
though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly, 
here it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for 
purposes of redesignation additional SIP requirements under Subpart 2 
that were not in effect at the time it submitted its redesignation 
request.
3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
    With respect to the 1-hour standard requirements, Mahoning and 
Trumbull Counties and also, separately, Columbiana County were 
designated as an Attainment area subject to a Clean Air Act section 
175A maintenance plan under the 1-hour standard. The Court's ruling 
does not impact redesignation requests for these types of areas.
    First, there are no conformity requirements that are relevant for 
redesignation requests, including the requirement to submit a 
transportation conformity SIP.\1\ Under longstanding EPA policy, EPA 
believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP 
requirement as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation 
request under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still 
required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where 
state rules have not been approved. 40 CFR 51.390. See Wall v. EPA, 265 
F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also 60 
FR 62748 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, FL redesignation). EPA approved Ohio's 
general and transportation conformity SIPs on March 11, 1996 (61 FR 
9646) and May 30, 2000 (65 FR 34395), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Clean Air Act section 176(c)(4)(E) currently requires States 
to submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain Federal 
criteria and procedures for determining transportation conformity. 
Transportation conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle 
emissions budgets that are established in control strategy SIPs and 
maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, with respect to the three other anti-backsliding provisions 
for the 1-hour standard that the Court found were not properly 
retained, Mahoning and Trumbull Counties and separately

[[Page 19438]]

Columbiana County are attainment areas subject to maintenance plans for 
the 1-hour standard, and the NSR, contingency measure (pursuant to 
section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)) and fee provision requirements no 
longer apply to an area that has been redesignated to attainment of the 
1-hour standard.
    Thus the decision in South Coast should not alter requirements that 
would preclude EPA from finalizing the redesignation of this area.

IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?

    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation from 
nonattainment to attainment provided that:
    (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the 
applicable NAAQS based on current air quality data; (2) the 
Administrator has fully approved an applicable state implementation 
plan for the area under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the 
Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to 
permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting from 
implementation of the applicable SIP, Federal air pollution control 
regulations, and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions; 
(4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the 
area meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the 
state containing the area has met all requirements applicable to the 
area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
    EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the General Preamble for 
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 on April 
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA provided further guidance on processing 
redesignation requests in several guidance documents. A listing of 
pertinent guidance documents is provided in other redesignation actions 
(for example in the Federal Register of September 9, 2005, at 70 FR 
53606).

V. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State's Request and What Is the Basis 
for EPA's Proposed Actions?

    EPA is proposing to: (1) Determine that the Youngstown area has 
attained the 8-hour ozone standard; (2) approve the ozone maintenance 
plan for the Ohio portion of this area (Columbiana, Mahoning and 
Trumbull counties) and the VOC and NOX MVEBs supported by 
this ozone maintenance plan; and, 3) approve the redesignation of the 
Ohio portion to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    The basis for our proposed determination and approval is as 
follows:

1. The Youngstown Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS if there are no violations of the NAAQS, as determined in 
accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50 appendix I based on the 
most recent three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-
assured air quality monitoring data at all monitoring sites in the 
area. For each monitor in the area and nearby, the average of the 
annual fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations 
measured and recorded over a three-year period must not exceed the 
ozone standard. Based on the ozone data rounding convention described 
in 40 CFR part 50 appendix I, the 8-hour standard is attained if the 
area's ozone design value \2\ is 0.085 ppm (85 ppb) or lower. The data 
must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 
50, and must be recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). The ozone 
monitors generally should have remained at the same locations for the 
duration of the monitoring period required to demonstrate attainment 
(for three years or more \3\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The worst-case monitoring site-specific ozone design value 
in the area.
    \3\ EPA generally opposes terminating or relocating monitors at 
sites that are currently recording violations of the ozone standard. 
In addition, EPA encourages states to continue monitoring at most 
sites over the long term to confirm maintenance of the ozone 
standard and to support the determination of robust ozone 
concentration trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the December 4, 2006, ozone redesignation request, the 
Ohio EPA submitted summarized ozone monitoring data indicating the top 
four daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations for each monitoring site 
in the Youngstown area during the 2004-2006 period. When the 
redesignation request was submitted, the complete 2006 monitoring data 
had not been quality assured and the data table submitted by Ohio EPA 
shows less than 75% data for the Ohio monitoring sites. However, now 
the Ohio EPA has completed all quality assurance procedures and the AQS 
system has over 75% data completeness for the Ohio sites. The following 
table summarizes the worst-case ozone concentrations that are part of 
the quality-assured ozone data collected and recorded in these 
Counties. These data have been entered into EPA's AQS. The annual 
fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum ozone concentrations, along with their 
three-year averages are summarized in Table 1.

                                Table 1.--Fourth-High 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations
                                          [In parts per billion (ppb)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  County                           Monitoring site          2004      2005      2006     Average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mahoning OH...............................  345 Oakhill.................        74        83        76        77
Trumbull OH...............................  6346 Kinsman-Bloomfield Rd..        78        83        74        78
Trumbull OH...............................  842 Youngstown-Kingsville Rd        80        87        82        83
Mercer PA.................................  Pa518 (New Castle Road) &           76        87        79        79
                                             Pa418.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These data show that the site-specific ozone design values (average 
fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations over the period 
of 2004-2006) for all monitoring sites in the Youngstown area are below 
the 85 ppb average ozone standard violation cut-off. These data support 
the conclusion that the Youngstown area ozone monitors did not record a 
violation of the 8-hour ozone standard during the 2004-2006 period, and 
monitored attainment of the standard during this period.
    As discussed below with respect to the ozone maintenance plan, the 
State commits to continue ozone monitoring in these Counties.
    We believe that the data submitted by the State to the AQS provide 
an adequate demonstration that the Youngstown area has attained the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, we propose to find that the Youngstown

[[Page 19439]]

area, including Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio, has 
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

2. Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Have Met All Applicable 
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and These Areas 
Have a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA

    We have determined that the State of Ohio has met all currently 
applicable SIP requirements for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 
Counties under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We 
have determined that the Ohio SIP meets currently applicable SIP 
requirements under subpart 1 part D of title I of the CAA (requirements 
specific to basic ozone nonattainment areas). See section 
107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA. In addition, we have determined that the 
Ohio SIP is fully approved with respect to all applicable requirements. 
See section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. In making these 
determinations, we noted the CAA requirements that are applicable to 
the areas, and determined that the applicable portions of the SIP 
meeting these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of 
the CAA. We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to 
currently applicable requirements of the CAA, those CAA requirements 
applicable to Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties at the time 
the State submits the final, complete ozone redesignation request for 
these areas.
a. Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Have Met All Applicable 
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
    The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (see ``Procedures for 
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum 
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, 
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section 
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. To qualify for redesignation of an area to 
attainment under this interpretation, the state and the area must meet 
the relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the State's 
submittal of a complete redesignation request for the area. See also 
the September 17, 1993, Michael Shapiro memorandum and 66 FR 12459, 
12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, 
Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS). Applicable 
requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the state's 
submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a 
redesignation of the area to attainment of the standard is approved, 
but are not required as prerequisites to redesignation. See Section 
175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). 
See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St. 
Louis/East St. Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
    General SIP requirements: Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA 
contains the general requirements for a SIP, which include: Enforceable 
emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques; 
provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices 
necessary to collect data on ambient air quality; and programs to 
enforce the emission limitations. General SIP elements and requirements 
are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. 
These requirements and SIP elements include, but are not limited to, 
the following: (a) Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the 
State after reasonable public notice and a hearing; (b) provisions for 
establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor 
ambient air quality; (c) implementation of a source permit program; (d) 
provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and part D requirements (New Source 
Review (NSR)) for new sources or major source modifications; (e) 
criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, 
and reporting; (f) provisions for air quality modeling; and, (g) 
provisions for public and local agency participation.
    SIP requirements and elements are discussed in the following EPA 
documents: ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, September 4, 1992; ``State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,'' 
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 
Division, October 28, 1992; and ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to 
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum 
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, September 17, 
1993.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires SIPs to contain certain 
measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing 
to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, 
EPA required states to establish programs to address transport of air 
pollutants (NOX SIP call and Clean Air Interstate Rule 
(CAIR)). EPA has also found, generally, that states have not submitted 
SIPs under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA to meet the interstate 
transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA (70 FR 
21147, April 25, 2005). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements 
for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's 
classification. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a 
particular nonattainment area's classification are the relevant 
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The 
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to 
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular 
area in the state.
    We believe that these requirements should not be construed to be 
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. Further, we 
believe that the other section 110 elements described above that are 
not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and that are not 
linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable 
requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to 
these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We 
conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are 
linked with an area's designation and classification are the relevant 
measures for evaluating this aspect of a redesignation request. This 
approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of 
conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation 
purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. 
See: Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-
53176, October 10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-
Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, 
Florida final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the 
discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio ozone redesignation 
(65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ozone 
redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).
    We believe that section 110 elements not linked to the area's 
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. 
Nonetheless, we also note that EPA has previously approved provisions 
in the Ohio SIP addressing section 110 elements under the 1-hour

[[Page 19440]]

ozone standard. We have analyzed the Ohio SIP as codified in 40 CFR 
part 52, subpart KK and have determined that it is consistent with the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. The SIP, which has been 
adopted after reasonable public notice and hearing, contains 
enforceable emission limitations; requires monitoring, compiling, and 
analyzing ambient air quality data; requires preconstruction review of 
new major stationary sources and major modifications of existing 
sources; provisions for adequate funding, staff, and associated 
resources necessary to implement its requirements; requires stationary 
source emissions monitoring and reporting; and, otherwise satisfies the 
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2).
    Part D SIP requirements: EPA has determined that the Ohio SIP meets 
applicable ozone SIP requirements under part D of the CAA. Under part 
D, for ozone, an area's classification (subpart 1, marginal, moderate, 
serious, severe, and extreme) indicates the requirements to which it 
will be subject. Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the 
CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment area plan requirements 
applicable to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part D, found in 
section 182 of the CAA, establishes additional specific requirements 
for ozone nonattainment areas depending on the area's nonattainment 
classification.
    Part D, subpart 1 requirements: For purposes of evaluating this 
redesignation request, the applicable requirements are those contained 
in Subpart I of Part D, in particular in sections 172(c)(1)-(9) and 
176. A thorough discussion of the requirements of section 172 can be 
found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 
13498). See also 68 FR 4852-4853, in an ozone redesignation notice of 
proposed rulemaking for the St. Louis area, for a discussion of section 
172 requirements.
    No requirements for the 8-hour ozone standard under part D of the 
CAA will come due for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties prior 
to June 15, 2007. For example, the requirement for an ozone attainment 
demonstration, as contained in section 172(c)(1), is not yet 
applicable, nor are the requirements for Reasonably Available Control 
Measures (RACM) and Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) 
(section 172(c)(1)), Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) (section 
172(c)(2)), and attainment plan and RFP contingency measures (section 
172(c)(9)). All of these required SIP elements are required for 
submittal after June 15, 2007, and Ohio has submitted the public 
hearing transcript and response to comment to complete the ozone 
redesignation request and maintenance plan for Mahoning, Trumbull, and 
Columbiana Counties prior to the due date. Therefore, none of the part 
D requirements are considered to be applicable to Mahoning, Trumbull, 
and Columbiana Counties for purposes of redesignation for ozone.
    Section 176 conformity requirements: Section 176(c) of the CAA 
requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that 
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 that the CAA required the EPA to 
promulgate.
    In addition to the fact that part D requirements will not become 
due prior to Ohio's submittal of the complete ozone redesignation 
request for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, and, 
therefore, are not believed by the EPA to be applicable for 
redesignation purposes in this case, EPA similarly believes that it is 
reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements as not applying for 
purposes of evaluating the ozone redesignation request under section 
107(d) of the CAA. EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the 
conformity requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the 
ozone redesignation request under section 107(d) of the CAA because 
state conformity rules are still required after redesignation of areas 
to attainment of a NAAQS and Federal conformity rules apply where state 
rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 
2001). See also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida). EPA 
approved Ohio's general and transportation conformity SIPs on March 11, 
1996 (61 FR 9646) and May 30, 2000 (65 FR 34395), respectively.
    We conclude that Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties have 
satisfied all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of 
the CAA to the extent that these requirements apply for purposes of 
reviewing the State's ozone redesignation request.
b. Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties have a fully approved 
applicable SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA
    EPA has fully approved the Ohio SIP for Mahoning, Trumbull, and 
Columbiana Counties under section 110(k) of the CAA for all applicable 
requirements. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a 
redesignation request, plus any additional measures it may approve in 
conjunction with a redesignation action. See the September 4, 1992 John 
Calcagni memorandum, page 3, Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance 
v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 
F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001) 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the passage 
of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully 
approved, provisions addressing the various required SIP elements 
applicable to Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties for purposes 
of redesignation. No Mahoning, Trumbull, or Columbiana County SIP 
provisions are currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or 
partially approved. As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 
110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not 
linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable 
requirements for purposes of review of the State's redesignation 
request. EPA also believes that since the part D requirements did not 
become due prior to Ohio's submittal of the final, complete 
redesignation request, they also are not applicable requirements for 
purposes of redesignation.

3. The Air Quality Improvements in Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 
Counties Are Due To Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions

    We believe that the State of Ohio has adequately demonstrated that 
the observed air quality improvements in Mahoning, Trumbull, and 
Columbiana Counties are due to permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions resulting from the implementation of the SIP, Federal 
measures, and other State-adopted measures. In making this 
demonstration, the State has documented the changes in VOC and 
NOX emissions from all anthropogenic (man-made or man-based) 
sources in Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties between 2002, an 
ozone standard violation year, and 2004, one of the years in which 
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties recorded attainment of the 
8-hour ozone standard. The Ohio EPA has also

[[Page 19441]]

discussed permanent and enforceable emission reductions have occurred 
elsewhere in the State and in other upwind areas that have contributed 
to the air quality improvement in Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 
Counties. Table 2 summarizes the VOC and NOX emissions 
totals from the anthropogenic sources in 2002 and 2004 for all counties 
(Mahoning, Trumbull, Columbiana, and Mercer) in the nonattainment area 
as summarized in the State's ozone redesignation submittal. The 
Youngstown 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, which is a bi-state area, 
must show emission reductions across the entire area. The table shows 
all the counties in the area including the Ohio and Pennsylvania 
counties.

Table 2.--Total Anthropogenic VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in
  Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio and Mercer County,
                              Pennsylvania
                          [Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    2002         2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Volatile Organic Compounds
                                Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total All Source Categories...................        70.51        64.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total All Source Categories...................        95.53        82.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mercer County Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total All Source Categories...................        20.80        19.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Mercer County Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total All Source Categories...................        25.44        22.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Total for Youngstown/Warren/Sharon OH-       91.31        83.65
 PA VOCs......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Total for Youngstown/Warren/Sharon OH-      120.97       104.93
 PA NOX.......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From the above table, it can be seen that the Youngstown area 
experienced decreases in VOC and NOX anthropogenic emissions 
between 2002 and 2004. The State of Ohio concludes that the differences 
in the 2002 and 2004 emissions are due primarily to the implementation 
of permanent and enforceable emission control requirements. The State 
asserts that these emission reductions along with those occurring 
elsewhere in the State and in upwind areas have led to observed 
improvements in ozone air quality in the Youngstown area.
    Also, the State notes a significant decline in regional 
NOX emissions between 2002 and 2004 as the result of the 
implementation of State NOX emission control rules for 
combustion sources, primarily Electric Generating Units (EGUs), in 
compliance with EPA's NOX SIP call and acid rain control 
requirements under title IV of the CAA. Besides the NOX 
emission reductions occurring within the State itself, the 
implementation of statewide NOX emission control rules 
occurred in many States east of the Mississippi River. These emission 
reductions are assumed to have contributed significantly to the air 
quality improvements in the Youngstown area through the reduction of 
transported ozone and ozone precursors. The Youngstown area has several 
EGUs which show reductions between 2002 and 2004. The EGU 
NOX emissions are reduced from 23.36 tons per year in 2002 
to 17.93 tons per day in 2004. These reductions are documented in Table 
23 of the Ohio submittal. In addition, the area has benefited from the 
NOX emission reductions occurring throughout the State of 
Ohio and in the surrounding areas. These regional NOX 
emission reductions are considered to be permanent and enforceable.
    Besides the implementation of the regional NOX emission 
controls, the State of Ohio notes that, in the mid-1990's, the State of 
Ohio promulgated statewide rules requiring Reasonably Available Control 
Techniques (RACT) for significant new sources of VOC emissions. The 
RACT rules have been implemented for significant new VOC sources 
locating in Ohio subsequent to the State's adoption of the rules. The 
Ohio rules are found in OAC Chapter 3745-21. Additional implemented, or 
soon to be implemented, emission control rules include several Federal 
rules: (1) Tier II emission standards for vehicles and gasoline sulfur 
content standards (promulgated by EPA in February 2000 and currently 
being implemented); (2) heavy-duty diesel engine emission control rules 
(promulgated by the EPA in July 2000 and currently being implemented); 
and, (3) clean air non-road diesel rule (promulgated by the EPA in May 
2004 and currently being phased in through 2009). All of these rules 
have contributed to reducing VOC and NOX emissions 
throughout the State of Ohio (and in other States surrounding Ohio) and 
will contribute to further, future emission reductions in Ohio.
    The State of Ohio commits to maintain the existing VOC and 
NOX emission controls after Mahoning, Trumbull, and 
Columbiana Counties are redesignated to attainment of the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS, and these reductions are required to be maintained under the 
Ohio SIP.

4. Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Have a Fully Approvable 
Ozone Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA

    In conjunction with its request to redesignate Mahoning, Trumbull, 
and Columbiana Counties to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Ohio 
submitted SIP revision requests to provide for maintenance of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in the Youngstown area through 2018, exceeding the 10 
year minimum maintenance period required by the CAA.

[[Page 19442]]

a. What Is Required in an Ozone Maintenance Plan?
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of air 
quality maintenance plans for areas seeking redesignation from 
nonattainment to attainment of a NAAQS. Under section 175A, a 
maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the 
applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves 
the redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, 
the State must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates 
that maintenance of the standard will continue for 10 years following 
the initial 10 year maintenance period. To address the possibility of 
future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such 
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems 
necessary, to assure prompt correction of any future NAAQS violations. 
The September 4, 1992, John Calcagni memorandum provides additional 
guidance on the content of maintenance plans. An ozone maintenance plan 
should, at minimum, address the following items: (1) The attainment VOC 
and NOX emissions inventories; (2) a maintenance 
demonstration showing maintenance for the first 10 years of the 
maintenance period; (3) a commitment to maintain the existing 
monitoring network; (4) factors and procedures to be used for 
verification of continued attainment; and, (5) a contingency plan to 
prevent and/or correct a future violation of the NAAQS. The Ohio 
maintenance plan is designed to work in conjunction with Pennsylvania's 
maintenance plan to keep the Youngstown area in attainment for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
b. What Are the Attainment Emission Inventories for Mahoning, Trumbull, 
and Columbiana Counties?
    Ohio EPA prepared VOC and NOX emission inventories for 
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, including point 
(significant stationary sources), other (area sources, smaller and 
widely-distributed stationary sources), Marine, Aircraft, and Railroad 
(MAR) mobile sources, non-road (off-road) mobile sources, and on-road 
mobile sources for 2002 (the base nonattainment year), 2004 (the 
attainment year), 2009, and 2018 (the projected maintenance year). To 
develop the 2004, 2009, and 2018 emission inventories, the Ohio EPA 
projected the 2002 emissions applying various source category-specific 
growth factors and emission control factors. The State has documented 
how the 2002 base year emissions were derived and how these emissions 
were projected to derive the 2004, 2009, and 2018 emissions. The 
following summarizes the procedures and sources of data used by the 
Ohio EPA to derive the 2002 emissions.
i. Point Sources
    The primary source of point source information was facility-
specific emissions and source activity data collected annually by the 
State for sources covered by Title V \4\ source permits. This 
information includes emissions, process rates, source operating 
schedules, emissions control data, and other relevant source 
information. The State also used emissions data provided by EPA's EGU 
emission inventory, maintained to support the NOX SIP call 
emissions trading program and the acid rain control/trading program. 
The sources included in the 2002 point source emissions inventory were 
identified using Ohio's Title V STARS database system. The emissions 
included in this database are facility-reported actual emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Title V of the CAA requires source-specific emission permits 
detailing all applicable emission control requirements and emission 
limits, as specified in the SIP, for each source facility covered by 
the State's Title V source permit program and requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ohio EPA defines point source emissions as those which occur at an 
identifiable stationary stack or vent. Point source emissions not 
emitted from discrete stacks or vents are defined to be fugitive 
emissions. Facility-specific fugitive emissions are also reported by 
each Title V facility and stored in the Title V STARS database.
    Point source emissions included in the 2002 base year emissions 
inventory were provided to the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium 
(LADCO). LADCO applied temporal and spatial profiles to calculate July 
weekday emissions rates. The Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 
Counties' emissions derived from this set of emissions data were split 
into EGU emissions and non-EGU emissions for inclusion in the base year 
emissions inventory used to support the Mahoning, Trumbull, and 
Columbiana Counties ozone redesignation request.
ii. Area (Other) Sources
    Area sources are those sources which are generally small, numerous, 
and have not been inventoried as specific point, mobile, or biogenic 
sources. The emissions for these sources are generally calculated using 
various surrogates, such as population, estimates of employees in 
various occupational groups, etc., and grouped by general source types. 
The area source emissions are typically defined at the county level.
    Ohio EPA has either used published Emission Inventory Improvement 
Program (EIIP) emissions estimation methodologies or other 
methodologies typically used by other states to estimate the area 
source emissions. Area source categories include: Various stationary 
combustion sources (not including the EGU sources included in the point 
source portion of the emissions inventory); agricultural pesticides; 
architectural surface coatings; auto body refinishing; consumer and 
commercial solvent usage; solvent cleaning; fuel marketing; graphic 
arts; hospital sterilizers; industrial surface coating (minus point 
source emissions for this source category); municipal solid waste 
disposal; portable fuel containers; privately owned treatment works; 
traffic markings; human cremation; industrial fuel combustion; 
residential fuel combustion; structural fires; and miscellaneous source 
categories. The State has documented the data sources used for each of 
these source categories.
iii. Non-Road Mobile Sources
    The non-road mobile source emissions inventory was generated 
regionally by running EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM). 
LADCO applied spatial and temporal allocations to derive emissions for 
a July weekday. The basic non-road algorithm for calculating emissions 
in NMIM uses base year equipment populations, average load factors, 
available engine powers, activity hours and emission factors to 
calculate the emissions.
iv. Marine, Aircraft, and Rail (MAR) Sources
    Due to the significance of the emissions from these mobile source 
types, the Ohio EPA has decided to treat these source categories 
separately from other non-road mobile sources. The MAR emissions 
include emissions from commercial marine, aircraft, and locomotive 
sources.
    Commercial marine vessels consist of several different categories 
of vessel types. For each vessel type, there are unique engine types, 
emission rates, and activity data sets. The emissions inventory 
documentation lists the vessel types and activity data sources by 
vessel type, along with special distribution of each vessel type.
    Locomotive activity was divided into various rail categories: Class 
I operations; Class II/III operations; passenger trains; commuter 
lines; and yard operations. Since Class I operations

[[Page 19443]]

are expected to be the most significant rail operations in the three 
Counties, operators of Class I operations were queried for activity and 
emissions-related information for each railroad line. This approach 
provided for more specific estimates of emissions by railroad line. 
Class II/III emissions were based on national fuel consumption and per 
employee fuel consumption estimates. The number of railroad employees 
in each county was used to allocate the fuel consumption to each county 
and, therefore, the emissions to each county.
    EPA provided the aircraft emission estimates based on Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) published Landing and Take-Off (LTO) 
rates by engine type for each airline and major airport in the State of 
Ohio. The 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), emissions were calculated and assigned to each 
county in the State, including Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 
Counties.
    The MAR data were processed by LADCO to calculate July 2002 daily 
emissions of VOC and NOX.
v. On-Road Mobile Sources
    The inventories of on-road mobile source emissions for Mahoning, 
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties were developed by the Ohio EPA in 
conjunction with the Ohio Department of Transportation (Ohio DOT), the 
Eastgate Regional Council of Governments (Eastgate), LADCO, and EPA. 
Eastgate utilized a regional travel demand forecast model to simulate 
traffic and to forecast traffic flow for given growth expectations in 
the metropolitan areas of Mahoning and Trumbull counties. In rural 
areas that are not covered by the network model, such as Columbiana 
County, the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data was used 
to estimate vehicle mile of travel (VMT). The travel demand forecasting 
model was used to predict the total daily vehicle miles traveled and 
speeds on roadways. MOBILE6.2 is used to calculate emissions per mile 
based on the VMT and speed projections from the travel demand forecast 
model. The most current vehicle age distribution data, temperature data 
and fuel properties data provided by Ohio EPA was used in the analysis.
vi. Projected Emissions for the Attainment Year
    Ambient ozone air quality data showed that Mahoning, Trumbull, and 
Columbiana Counties met the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 2004-2006 period. 
Ohio EPA used emission estimates for 2004 as the ``attainment year'' 
emissions for the area, to represent the base period emissions for the 
demonstrations of maintenance. See the discussion of the demonstrations 
of maintenance below. The 2004 emissions were estimated by growing the 
emissions from the 2002 base year emission levels.
    Ohio EPA used point source growth data provided by individual point 
source facilities along with other source category-specific growth 
estimates and emission control estimates to estimate stationary source 
VOC and NOX emissions for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 
Counties. LADCO provided growth and source control projection data to 
project VOC and NOX area source emissions. The Metropolitan 
Planning Organization for the area, Eastgate, provided projections of 
vehicle travel estimates (Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)) and emissions, 
with MOBILE 6.2 providing the expected changes in vehicle emission 
factors. The estimated 2004 emissions have been compared to the 2002 
base year emissions to demonstrate the basis for the improved air 
quality in Mahoning, Trumbull and Columbiana Counties. See Table 2 
above for a summary of the 2004 VOC and NOX emissions and 
for a comparison of these emissions with the 2002 emissions.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
    As part of the December 4, 2006, redesignation request submittal, 
Ohio EPA included requested revisions to the Ohio SIP to incorporate 
the ozone maintenance plan for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 
Counties as required under section 175A of the CAA. Included in the 
maintenance plan is the ozone attainment maintenance demonstration. 
This demonstration shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 
2018 by documenting attainment year and future projected VOC and 
NOX emissions and showing that future emissions of VOC and 
NOX will remain at or below the attainment year emission 
levels. Note that an ozone maintenance demonstration need not to be 
based on ozone modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 
53099-53100 (October 19, 2001) and 68 FR 25430-25432 (May 12, 2003).
    The Ohio EPA projected the VOC and NOX emissions in 
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties to the years of 2009 and 
2018 to demonstrate maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 
10 years after the expected redesignation dates for these areas. For 
all counties, Ohio EPA used source growth estimates provided by LADCO 
along with mobile source growth estimates provided by the Eastgate 
travel demand model and MOBILE 6.2 to project the Mahoning, Trumbull, 
and Columbiana Counties VOC and NOX emissions.
    Table 3 summarizes the VOC and NOX emissions projected 
to occur in Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Ohio during the 
demonstrated maintenance period. The State of Ohio chose 2018 as a 
maintenance year to meet the 10-year maintenance requirement of the 
CAA, allowing several years for EPA to complete the redesignation 
rulemaking process. The State also chose 2009 as an interim year to 
demonstrate that VOC and NOX emissions will remain below the 
attainment year levels throughout the 10-year maintenance period. Table 
4 summarizes the VOC and NOX emissions projected to occur in 
Mercer County, Pennsylvania over the same maintenance period.

         Table 3.--Projected VOC and NOX Emissions In Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio
                                                   [Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2004                            2018
                  Source sector                     Attainment     2009  Interim    Maintenance   Safety  margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions:
    Point (includes EGU)........................            6.02            6.39            7.75  ..............
    Area (Other)................................           24.10           22.86           23.03  ..............
    Non-Road Mobile.............................            7.95            6.24            4.90  ..............
    On-Road Mobile..............................           26.21           17.03            9.01  ..............

[[Page 19444]]

    Marine-Air-Railroad.........................            0.32            0.29            0.29  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total VOC Emissions.....................           64.60           52.81           44.98          *19.62
NOX Emissions:
    Point.......................................           20.25            8.32           12.69  ..............
    Area (Other)................................            2.49            2.79            2.96  ..............
    Non-Road Mobile.............................           10.26            8.23            4.21  ..............
    On-Road Mobile..............................           43.50           29.32           11.56  ..............
    Marine-Air-Railroad.........................            6.00            4.30            4.01  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total NOX Emissions.....................           82.50           52.96           35.43         *47.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions.

                    Table 4.--Projected VOC and NOX Emissions In Mercer County, Pennsylvania
                                                   [Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2004                            2018
                  Source sector                     Attainment     2009  Interim    Maintenance   Safety  margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions:
    Point.......................................            1.73            2.73            3.66  ..............
    Area (Other)................................            7.61            7.36            7.83  ..............
    Non-Road (includes MAR).....................            3.78            3.41            2.59  ..............
    On-Road Mobile..............................            5.93            4.23            2.63  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total VOC Emissions.....................           19.05           17.73           16.71           *2.34
NOX Emissions:
    Point.......................................            2.93            4.30            5.52  ..............
    Area (Other)................................            0.85            0.88            0.89  ..............
    Non-Road (includes MAR).....................            2.82            2.35            1.44  ..............
    On-Road Mobile..............................           15.83           11.22            4.89  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total NOX Emissions.....................           22.43           18.75           12.74          *9.69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions.

    The Ohio EPA also notes that the State's EGU NOX 
emissions control rules stemming from EPA's NOX SIP call and 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), to be implemented after 2006, will 
further lower NOX emissions throughout the State and upwind 
of Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties. This will result in 
decreased ozone and ozone precursor transport into Mahoning, Trumbull, 
and Columbiana Counties, and will support maintenance of the 8-hour 
ozone standard.
    The emissions projections for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 
Counties, Ohio and Mercer County, Pennsylvania along with the expected 
impacts of the State's EGU NOX control rules lead to the 
conclusion that the Youngstown area should maintain the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS throughout the required 10-year maintenance period and through 
2018. The projected decreases in local VOC and local and regional 
NOX emissions indicate that peak ozone levels in the 
Youngstown area may actually further decline during the maintenance 
period.
    Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the 
attainment year emissions, we conclude that Ohio EPA has successfully 
demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone standard should be maintained in 
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties. We believe that this is 
especially likely given the expected impacts of the NOX SIP 
call and CAIR. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that 
other states in the eastern portion of the United States are also 
expected to reduce regional NOX emissions through 
implementation of their NOX emission control rules for EGUs 
and other NOX sources through the implementation of the 
NOX SIP call and CAIR.
d. Contingency Plan
    Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include 
such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the 
State will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that might occur 
after redesignation. The maintenance plan must identify the contingency 
measures to be considered for possible adoption, a schedule and 
procedure for adoption and implementation of the selected contingency 
measures, and a time limit for action by the State. The State should 
also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the 
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The 
maintenance plan must include a requirement that the State will 
continue to implement all measures with respect to control of the 
pollutant(s) that were included in the SIP before the redesignation of 
the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
    As required by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio has adopted 
contingency plans to help address possible future ozone air quality 
problems in the Youngstown area. The contingency plans have two levels 
of actions/responses depending on whether a violation of the 8-hour 
ozone standard is only threatened (Warning Level

[[Page 19445]]

Response), has actually occurred or appears to be very imminent (Action 
Level Response).
    A Warning Level Response will be triggered whenever an annual (1-
year) fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone concentration of 88 ppb occurs 
in a single ozone season in the Youngstown area. A Warning Level 
Response will consist of a study to determine whether the high ozone 
value indicates a trend toward higher ozone concentrations or whether 
emissions appear to be increasing. The study will evaluate whether the 
trend, if any, is likely to continue and, if so, the control measures 
necessary to reverse the trend will be selected for evaluation and 
possible adoption. Implementation of necessary controls in response to 
a Warning Level Response triggering will take place as expeditiously as 
possible, but in no event later than 12 months from the conclusion of 
the most recent ozone season (September 30).
    An Action Level Response will be triggered whenever a two year 
averaged annual fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone concentration of 85 
ppb occurs within the Youngstown area, or whenever a violation of the 
8-hour ozone standard is actually monitored in either the Ohio or 
Pennsylvania portions of the Youngstown area. Ohio and Pennsylvania 
have agreed to work together to address any possible future violation 
of the 8-hour ozone standard. In the event that an Action Level 
Response is triggered and is not due to an exceptional event, 
malfunction, or noncompliance with a source permit condition or rule 
requirement, Ohio EPA will determine the additional emission control 
measures needed to assure future attainment of the ozone NAAQS. 
Emission control measures that can be implemented in a short time will 
be selected in order to be in place within 18 months from the close of 
the ozone season that prompted the Action Level Response. Any new 
emission control measure that is selected for implementation will be 
given a public review. If a new emission control measure is already 
promulgated and scheduled to be implemented at the Federal or State 
level and if that emission control measure is determined to be 
sufficient to address the ozone air quality problem, additional local 
measures may be unnecessary. Ohio EPA will submit to the EPA an 
analysis to assess whether the proposed emission control measures are 
adequate to reverse the increase in peak ozone concentrations and to 
maintain the 8-hour ozone standard in the maintenance area. The 
selection of emission control measures will be based on cost-
effectiveness, emission reduction potential, economic and social 
considerations, or other factors that the Ohio EPA deems to be 
appropriate. Selected emission control measures will be subjected to 
public review and the State will seek public input prior to selecting 
new emission control measures. Finally, emission control measures that 
can be implemented in a short period of time will be selected in order 
to be in place within 18 months from the close of the ozone season in 
which the Action Level Response is triggered.
    The State's redesignation request indicates that the contingency 
measures to be considered will be selected from a comprehensive list of 
measures deemed appropriate and effective at the time the selection is 
made (after the need for contingency measures is triggered). The 
selection of candidate contingency measures will be based on cost-
effectiveness, emission reduction potential, economic and social 
considerations, and other factors that the Ohio EPA deems to be 
appropriate. Ohio will solicit input from interested and affected 
persons in the subject maintenance area prior to final selection of 
contingency measures.
    Although it is not possible at this time to specify which 
contingency measures would actually be implemented, the Ohio EPA has 
listed possible contingency measures. These include:
     Low Reid vapor pressure gasoline;
     Tightening of RACT on existing sources covered by EPA 
Control Technique Guidelines issued in response to the 1990 Clean Air 
Act amendments;
     Application of RACT to smaller existing sources;
     One or more transportation control measures sufficient to 
achieve at least half of a percent reduction in actual area-wide VOC 
emissions. The transportation control measures to be considered 
include:
     Trip reduction programs, including: Employer-based 
transportation management plans; area-wide rideshare programs; work 
schedule changes; and telecommuting;
     Traffic flow and transit improvements; and
     Other new or innovative transportation measures not yet in 
widespread use that affected state and local governments deem 
appropriate;
     Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit programs for fleet 
vehicle operations;
     Controls on consumer products consistent with those 
adopted elsewhere in the United States;
     Requirements for VOC or NOX emission offsets 
for new and modified major sources;
     Requirements for VOC or NOX emission offsets 
for new and modified minor sources;
     Increase of the ratio of emission offsets required for new 
sources; and
     Requirements for VOC or NOX emission controls 
on new minor sources (with emissions of less than 100 tons per year).
    No contingency measures will be adopted and implemented without 
providing the opportunity for full public participation and comment in 
the contingency measure selection process.
    A list of VOC and NOX source types potentially subject 
to future emission controls include:
    NOX RACT:

 EGUs
 Asphalt batching plants
 Industrial/commercial and institutional boilers
 Process heaters
 Internal combustion engines
 Combustion turbines
 Other sources with NOX emissions exceeding 100 tons 
per year

    VOC RACT:

 Consumer products
 Architectural and industrial maintenance coatings
 Stage I gasoline dispensing facilities
 Automobile refinishing shops
 Cold cleaner degreasers
 Portable fuel containers
 Synthetic organic compound manufacturing
 Wood manufacturing
 Industrial wastewater
 Aerospace industry
 Ship building
 Bakeries
 Plastic parts coating
 Volatile organic liquid storage
 Industrial solvent cleaning
 Offset lithography
 Industrial surface coating
 Other VOC sources with emissions exceeding 50 tons per year.
e. Provisions for a Future Update of the Ozone Maintenance Plan
    As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, the State commits to 
review the maintenance plans 8 years after redesignation of Mahoning, 
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties to attainment of the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS as required by section 175A of the CAA.
    We consider Ohio's ozone maintenance demonstration and contingency 
plan to be acceptable.

[[Page 19446]]

VI. Has Ohio Adopted Acceptable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the 
Ozone Maintenance Plan Which Can Be Used To Support Conformity 
Determinations?

A. How Are the Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets Developed and What Are 
the Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Mahoning, Trumbull, and 
Columbiana Counties?

    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, SIP 
revisions and ozone maintenance plans for applicable areas (for ozone 
nonattainment areas and for areas seeking redesignations to attainment 
of the ozone standard or revising existing ozone maintenance plans). 
These emission control SIP revisions (e.g. reasonable further progress 
and attainment demonstration SIP revisions), including ozone 
maintenance plans, must create MVEBs based on 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 State 
has the option to establish additional MVEBs for additional years as 
deemed appropriate by the interagency consultation process. The MVEBs 
serve as ceilings on mobile source emissions from an area's planned 
transportation system and are used to test planned transportation 
system changes or projects to assure compliance with the emission 
limits assumed in the SIP. The MVEB concept is further explained in the 
preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 
FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEBs in 
the SIP and how to revise the MVEBs if needed.
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such 
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be 
consistent with) the part of the SIP that addresses emissions from 
cars, trucks, and other on-roadway vehicles. Conformity to the SIP 
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality 
standard violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a 
transportation plan does not conform, most new transportation projects 
that would expand the capacity of the roadways cannot go forward. 
Regulations at 40 CFR Part 93 set forth EPA's policy, criteria, and 
procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of transportation 
activities to a SIP.
    The Transportation Conformity Rule, in 40 CFR 93.118(f), provides 
for adequacy findings through two mechanisms. First, 40 CFR 
93.118(f)(1) provides for posting a notice to the EPA conformity Web 
site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm 

and providing a 30-day public comment period. Second, a mechanism is 
described in 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2) which provides that EPA can review the 
adequacy of an implementation plan submission simultaneously with its 
review of the implementation plan itself. For this area, EPA is using 
the first process and posted the notice on our adequacy Web site on 
December 11, 2006. The comment period closed January 11, 2007, without 
any comments from the public on the adequacy of the MVEBs.
    Both Ohio and Pennsylvania are establishing separate State budgets 
in the Ohio and Pennsylvania maintenance plans. When conducting 
transportation conformity determinations, the Eastgate Regional Council 
of Governments will use the budgets established for Mahoning, Trumbull, 
and Columbiana Counties. Mobile source emissions will be constrained by 
both the Ohio maintenance plan budgets and the budgets established for 
Mercer County by Pennsylvania. These budgets will assure that mobile 
source emissions do not increase and that the air quality remains below 
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    The Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties ozone maintenance 
plan contains VOC and NOX MVEBs for the years 2009 and 2018. 
EPA has reviewed the submittal and has found that the MVEBs for 
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties meet the adequacy criteria 
in the Transportation Conformity Rule.
    EPA, through this rulemaking, is proposing to approve the MVEBs for 
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties because EPA has determined 
that the budgets are consistent with the control measures and future 
emissions projected in the SIP and that Mahoning, Trumbull, and 
Columbiana Counties can maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
for the relevant required 10-year period with mobile source emissions 
at the levels of the MVEBs. Ohio EPA has determined the 2018 MVEBs for 
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties to be 10.36 tons per day 
for VOC and 13.29 tons per day for NOX and the 2009 MVEBs 
for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties to be 19.58 tons per 
day for VOC and 33.71 tons per day for NOX. These MVEBs 
exceed the on-road mobile source VOC and NOX emissions 
projected by the Ohio EPA for 2009 and 2018, but do not exceed the 
levels necessary for continued maintenance of the NAAQS. Through 
discussions with all organizations involved in transportation planning 
for Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio EPA decided to 
include 15 percent safety margins in the MVEBs to provide for mobile 
source growth not anticipated in the projected 2009 and 2018 emissions. 
Ohio EPA has demonstrated that Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana 
Counties can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source 
emissions at the levels of the MVEBs since total source emissions with 
the increased mobile source emissions will remain under the attainment 
year levels. These MVEBs will be separate state area budgets for 
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties, Ohio. Pennsylvania 
established MVEBs for Mercer County through the 8-hour ozone 
maintenance plan that was submitted with Pennsylvania's request for 
redesignation. Action on the Pennsylvania MVEBs will be taken through 
separate rulemaking.

B. What Is a Safety Margin?

    A ``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment level 
of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions 
(from all sources) in the maintenance plan for a future maintenance 
year. As noted in Tables 3 and 4 above, Mahoning, Trumbull, and 
Columbiana Counties are projected to have a VOC safety margin of 22.42 
tons per day and a NOX safety margin of 47.07 tons per day 
in 2018. The addition of a portion of the safety margin to the MVEBs 
continues to maintain the emissions levels below the attainment level.

C. Are the MVEBs Approvable?

    The 2009 and 2018 VOC and NOX MVEBs for Mahoning, 
Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties (see Table 5) are approvable because 
they maintain the total emissions for Mahoning, Trumbull, and 
Columbiana Counties at or below the attainment year emission inventory 
levels, as required by the transportation conformity regulations.

[[Page 19447]]

  Table 5.--Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Columbiana, Mahoning and
                         Trumbull Counties, Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Year    Year
Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Ohio budgets   2009    2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC (tons/day)..........................................   19.58   10.36
NOX (tons/day)..........................................   33.71   13.29
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Youngstown area 
is attainment the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and EPA is proposing to approve 
Ohio's maintenance plan for assuring that the area will continue to 
attain this standard. The maintenance plan demonstrates maintenance to 
the year 2018 and includes contingency measures to remedy possible 
future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and establishes 2009 and 
2018 MVEBs for these Counties. EPA is proposing to approve the 2018 
MVEBs submitted by Ohio in conjunction with the redesignation request.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is 
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as 
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator 
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements 
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty 
beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded 
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as 
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it 
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the 
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because 
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks

    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant regulatory action,'' this 
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use 
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are 
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a 
prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus 
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for 
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with 
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of 
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the 
Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA 
do not apply.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: April 6, 2007.
Walter W. Kovalick,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
 [FR Doc. E7-7352 Filed 4-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P