[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 21 (Wednesday, January 31, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3319-3326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1848]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[OH66-1-6499A, OH76-1-6900A; FRL-5405-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USEPA is approving the State of Ohio's State
Implementation Plan revision request to redesignate the Canton (Stark
County), and Youngstown (Mahoning and Trumbull Counties) marginal ozone
nonattainment areas to attainment, and establish ozone standard
maintenance plans for these areas. Ground-level ozone, commonly known
as smog, is an air pollutant which forms on hot summer days which
harmfully affects lung tissue and breathing passages. The redesignation
to attainment of the health-based ozone air quality standard is based
on a request from the State of Ohio to redesignate this area and
approve its maintenance plan, and on the supporting data the State
submitted in support of the requests. Under the Clean Air Act,
designations can be changed if sufficient data are available to warrant
such change, and a maintenance plan is put in place which is designed
to ensure the area maintains ozone air quality standard for the next
ten years.
[[Page 3320]]
DATES: The ``direct final'' is effective on April 1, 1996, unless USEPA
receives adverse or critical comments by March 1, 1996. If USEPA
receives comments adverse to or critical of the approval discussed
above, USEPA will withdraw this approval before its effective date by
publishing a subsequent Federal Register document which withdraws this
final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a
subsequent rulemaking document.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision request and USEPA's analysis
(Technical Support Document) are available for inspection at the
following address: United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AR-
18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you telephone
William Jones at (312) 886-6058, before visiting the Region 5 Office).
Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Jones at (312) 886-6058.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 107(d) of the pre-amended
Clean Air Act (CAA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) promulgated the ozone attainment status for each area of every
State. For Ohio, Canton (Stark County), and Youngstown (Mahoning, and
Trumbull Counties) were designated as a nonattainment area for ozone,
see 43 FR 8962 (March 3, 1978), and 43 FR 45993 (October 5, 1978). On
November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted.
Public Law 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Pursuant to section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, the Canton and Youngstown
areas retained their designation of nonattainment for ozone by
operation of law, see 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). At the same time
these areas were classified as marginal ozone nonattainment areas based
on design values of 0.135 parts per million (ppm) for Canton, and 0.134
ppm for Youngstown. Design values are based upon actual monitoring data
collected in the area. A design value is calculated for each monitoring
site in the area, with the highest monitor design value being the
design value for the area. A design value for each monitor is usually
the fourth highest reading during a three year period. Generally, the
design value has been set from the years 1987 to 1989. Section 181 of
the CAA provides a table establishing classifications for different
areas based upon area design values. Areas with design values of 0.121
ppm up to 0.138 ppm are classified as marginal nonattainment. Mercer
County, Pennsylvania was also included in the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon
marginal ozone nonattainment area, along with Mahoning and Trumbull
Counties, Ohio. An ozone redesignation request was made by Ohio for
Mahoning and Trumbull Counties, but Pennsylvania has not requested
redesignation of Mercer County. In this case it is appropriate to
proceed with the redesignation of the Ohio portion of this ozone
nonattainment area, because: (1) The entire Youngstown-Warren-Sharon
marginal ozone nonattainment area has attained the ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); and (2) Ohio's maintenance plan
contains triggers that rely on the ozone monitor located in Mercer
County, Pennsylvania.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) requested that the
areas be redesignated in letters dated March 25, 1994, (received on
April 5, 1994) and August 15, 1994, (received on August 22, 1994) for
Canton and Youngstown, Ohio, respectively. The public hearing portions
were transmitted to us in letters from Robert Hodanbosi, Chief of the
Division of Air Pollution Control, OEPA, dated August 10, 1994, for
Canton, and November 14, 1994, for Youngstown.
The State provided monitoring, emissions data, and other
documentation to support its redesignation requests. The review
criteria and a review of the requests are provided below.
I. Redesignation Review Criteria
Under the CAA, designations can be changed if sufficient data are
available to warrant such change. The CAA provides the requirements for
redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) provides for redesignation if: (i) The Administrator
determines that the area has attained the NAAQS; (ii) The Administrator
has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area
under Section 110(k); (iii) The Administrator determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable
implementation plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control
regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (iv) The
Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of Section 175A; and (v) The State containing
such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under Section
110 and Part D.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has
provided guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following
memoranda and related documents:
1. Inspection/Maintenance Program Requirement--Provisions for
Redesignation (60 FR 1735), January 5, 1995.
2. ``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Mary D. Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994.
3. Conformity; General Preamble for Exemption from Nitrogen Oxides
Provisions, General Preamble for Future Proposed Rulemakings (59 FR
31238), June 17, 1994.
4. ``Section 182(f) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Exemptions Revised
Process and Criteria,'' John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, May 27, 1994.
5. ``Maintenance Plan Requirements for Incomplete/No Data Areas,''
Lydia Wegman, Deputy Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, May 8, 1994.
6. ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993.
7. ``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,'' Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993.
8. ``Technical Support Document (TSDs) for Redesignating Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/
Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993.
9. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response
to Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992.
10. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992.
[[Page 3321]]
11. ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs
Branch, June 1, 1992.
II. Review of the Redesignation Requests
The redesignation requests were reviewed to determine if they meet
the criteria for redesignating an area to attainment.
A. The Area Must Have Attained the Ozone NAAQS
For ozone, an area may be considered attaining the NAAQS if there
are no violations, as determined in accordance with the regulation
codified at 40 CFR 50.9, based on the three (3) most recent consecutive
calendar years of quality assured monitoring data. A violation occurs
when the ozone air quality monitoring data show greater than one (1)
average expected exceedance per year. An exceedance occurs when the
maximum hourly ozone concentration exceeds 0.124 parts per million
(ppm). The data should be collected and quality-assured in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the Aerometric Information
Retrieval System (AIRS) in order for it to be available to the public
for review.
Ambient air quality monitoring data show that these two areas
attained the NAAQS for ozone during the 1989 to 1994 time period, and
preliminary 1995 ozone monitoring data continues to demonstrate both
areas' continued attainment.
The ozone monitoring network for Canton consists of four (4)
monitors. In Canton only one (1) exceedance of the ozone standard has
been monitored since 1990; it was 0.130 ppm and occurred at the North
Canton monitor in 1991. The monitoring network for the Youngstown area
consists of four (4) monitors that are located in Mercer, Mahoning, and
Trumbull Counties. The Youngstown area has monitored several
exceedances since 1990 but is not in violation of the ozone standard.
Preliminary monitoring data for 1995 shows only one exceedance at the
Mahoning County Monitor, which is the first exceedance at that monitor
since 1991. This would not result in a violation.
Data stored in AIRS was used to determine the annual average
expected exceedances for the years 1992, 1993, and 1994. Data contained
in AIRS have undergone quality assurance review by the State and USEPA.
Since the annual average number of expected exceedances for each
monitor during the most recent three years is less than 1.0, the Canton
and Youngstown areas are attaining the standard.
Summaries of air quality data for Canton, and Youngstown are
contained in Tables 1 and 2. The areas are currently meeting the
section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) requirement of attaining the ozone NAAQS.
Table 1.--Peak 1-Hour Ozone Concentrations in the Canton Area 1989 to 1994
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exceedances Expected
Site County Year measured exceedances
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malone College.............................. Stark........................ 1989 0 0.0
Malone College.............................. Stark........................ 1990 0 0.0
Malone College.............................. Stark........................ 1991 0 0.0
Malone College.............................. Stark........................ 1992 0 0.0
Malone College.............................. Stark........................ 1993 0 0.0
Malone College.............................. Stark........................ 1994 0 0.0
245 W 5th St................................ Stark........................ 1992 0 0.0
245 W 5th St................................ Stark........................ 1993 0 0.0
245 W 5th St................................ Stark........................ 1994 0 0.0
6318 Heminger Av............................ Stark........................ 1989 0 0.0
6318 Heminger Av............................ Stark........................ 1990 0 0.0
6318 Heminger Av............................ Stark........................ 1991 1 1.0
6318 Heminger Av............................ Stark........................ 1992 0 0.0
6318 Heminger Av............................ Stark........................ 1993 0 0.0
6318 Heminger Av............................ Stark........................ 1994 0 0.0
City of Alliance............................ Stark........................ 1991 0 0.0
City of Alliance............................ Stark........................ 1992 0 0.0
City of Alliance............................ Stark........................ 1993 0 0.0
City of Alliance............................ Stark........................ 1994 0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Peak 1-Hour Ozone Concentrations in the Youngstown Area 1989 to 1994
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exceedances Expected
Site County Year measured exceedances
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 West Front St............................. Mahoning..................... 1989 0 0.0
9 West Front St............................. Mahoning..................... 1990 0 0.0
9 West Front St............................. Mahoning..................... 1991 1 1.0
9 West Front St............................. Mahoning..................... 1992 0 0.0
9 West Front St............................. Mahoning..................... 1993 0 0.0
9 West Front St............................. Mahoning..................... 1994 0 0.0
Airport..................................... Trumbull..................... 1991 0 0.0
Airport..................................... Trumbull..................... 1992 0 0.0
Airport..................................... Trumbull..................... 1993 0 0.0
Airport..................................... Trumbull..................... 1994 0 0.0
Community Hall.............................. Trumbull..................... 1992 0 0.0
Community Hall.............................. Trumbull..................... 1993 1 1.0
Community Hall.............................. Trumbull..................... 1994 0 0.0
City of Farrell............................. Mercer....................... 1989 0 0.0
City of Farrell............................. Mercer....................... 1990 0 0.0
City of Farrell............................. Mercer....................... 1991 0 0.0
[[Page 3322]]
City of Farrell............................. Mercer....................... 1992 0 0.0
City of Farrell............................. Mercer....................... 1993 0 0.0
City of Farrell............................. Mercer....................... 1994 0 0.0
M. K. Goddard State Park.................... Mercer....................... 1989 0 0.0
M. K. Goddard State Park.................... Mercer....................... 1990 0 0.0
M. K. Goddard State Park.................... Mercer....................... 1991 0 0.0
M. K. Goddard State Park.................... Mercer....................... 1992 0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k); and
the Area Must Have Met all Applicable Requirements Under Section 110
and Part D
Before the Canton and Youngstown areas may be redesignated to
attainment for ozone, each area must have fulfilled the applicable
requirements of section 110 and part D. USEPA interprets section
107(d)(3)(E)(v) to mean that, for a redesignation request to be
approved, the State must have met all requirements that became
applicable to the subject area prior to or at the time of the
submission of the redesignation request. As the Canton and Youngstown
redesignation requests were submitted to USEPA in March and August
1994, requirements that came due prior to these respective times must
be met for each request to be approved. Requirements of the CAA that
come due subsequent to the submission of the redesignation request
continue to be applicable to the area (see section 175A(c)) and, if the
redesignation is disapproved, the State remains obligated to fulfill
those requirements.
1. Section 110 Requirements
General SIP elements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of Title
I, Part A. These requirements include but are not limited to the
following: submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after
reasonable notice and public hearing, provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures
necessary to monitor ambient air quality, implementation of a permit
program, provisions for Part C (PSD) and D (NSR) permit programs,
criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring,
and reporting, provisions for modeling, and provisions for public and
local agency participation. For purposes of redesignation, the Ohio SIP
was reviewed to ensure that all requirements under the amended Act were
satisfied.
2. Part D Requirements
Under part D, an area's classification determines the requirements
to which it is subject. Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the basic
nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas.
Subpart 2 of part D establishes additional requirements for
nonattainment areas classified under table 1 of section 181(a). As
described in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title 1,
specific requirements of subpart 2 may override subpart 1's general
provisions (57 FR 13501 (April 16, 1992)). The 1990 Amendments to the
CAA reaffirmed the ozone nonattainment status of the Canton and
Youngstown areas and classified the areas as marginal. Therefore, in
order to be redesignated, the State must meet the applicable
requirements of subpart 1 of part D--as well as the applicable
requirements of subpart 2 of part D that apply to marginal areas such
as Canton and Youngstown.
Section 172(c) sets forth general requirements applicable to all
nonattainment areas. Under section 172(b), the section 172(c)
requirements are applicable as determined by the Administrator, but no
later than 3 years after an area has been designated as nonattainment
under the amended CAA. Furthermore, as noted above, some of these
section 172(c) requirements are superseded by more specific
requirements in subpart 2 of part D. In the cases of Canton and
Youngstown, the State has satisfied all of the section 172(c)
requirements necessary for these areas to be redesignated upon the
basis of the redesignation requests submitted on March 25, 1994, and
August 15, 1994.
In the case of marginal ozone nonattainment areas, the section
172(c)(1) Reasonably Available Control Measures was superseded by
section 182(a)(2) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
requirements, which required marginal ozone nonattainment areas that
were previously designated nonattainment to submit RACT corrections.
See General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I, 57 FR at 13503,
and the volatile organic compound (VOC) RACT Fix-up rulemaking
published at 58 FR 49458. Thus, for the Canton and Youngstown areas,
the VOC RACT fix-up SIP must be fully approved. The VOC RACT fix-up SIP
previously submitted by Ohio was given partial approval, partial
disapproval, and partial limited approval/limited disapproval. See the
Federal Register rulemaking dated May 9, 1994, at 56 FR 23796. However,
Ohio made a subsequent submittal to address the VOC RACT requirements
for these areas, for which USEPA has published a direct final approval,
along with a proposed approval action. See the direct final and
proposed rulemakings published in the Federal Register on March 23,
1995 (60 FR 15235, and 60 FR 15270). Consequently, the VOC RACT fix-up
requirements have now been fully approved and became effective on May
5, 1995. Also, by virtue of provisions of section 182(a), marginal
areas were not required to submit a demonstration that the SIP provide
for attainment.
With respect to the section 172(c)(2) Reasonable Further Progress
(RFP) requirement, as the Canton and Youngstown areas have attained the
ozone NAAQS no RFP requirements apply. See General Preamble for the
Implementation of title I, 57 FR at 13564.
The section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirement was addressed
in a separate review and December 7, 1995, rulemaking action on the
1990 base year inventory required under subpart 2 of part D, section
182(a)(1) (See 60 FR 62737). In that action, the inventory was approved
as meeting the section 182(a)(1) requirement. Since the 182(a)(1)
requirement is met, the 172(c)(3) requirement is also satisfied.
As for the section 172(c)(5) NSR requirement, USEPA has determined
that areas being redesignated need not comply with the NSR requirement
prior to redesignation provided that the area demonstrates maintenance
of the standard without part D NSR in effect.
[[Page 3323]]
A memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled Part D New Source Review
(part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment, fully describes the rationale for this view, and is based
on the Agency's authority to establish de minimis exceptions to
statutory requirements. See Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F. 2d 323,
360-61 (D.C. Cir. 1979). As discussed below, the State of Ohio has
demonstrated that the Canton and Youngstown areas will be able to
maintain the standard without part D NSR in effect and, therefore, the
State need not have a fully-approved part D NSR program prior to
approval of the redesignation request for these areas. Once the area is
redesignated to attainment, the PSD program, which has been delegated
to Ohio, will become effective immediately. The PSD program was
delegated to Ohio at Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 52.21(u), on
May 1, 1980, and amended November 7, 1988.
The section 172(c)(9) contingency measure requirements also do not
apply to marginal ozone nonattainment areas. Section 182(a) of the CAA
states that section 172(c)(9) (relating to contingency measures) shall
not apply to marginal areas.
Finally, for purposes of redesignation, the Canton and Youngstown
SIPs were reviewed to ensure that all requirements of section
110(a)(2), containing general SIP elements, were satisfied. As noted
above, USEPA believes the SIP satisfies all of those requirements.
Section 176(c) of the Act requires States to revise their SIPs to
establish criteria and procedures to ensure that, before they are
taken, Federal actions conform to the air quality planning goals in the
applicable State SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies
to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or
approved under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act
(``transportation conformity''), as well as to all other Federal
actions (``general conformity'').
The USEPA promulgated final transportation conformity regulations
on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188) and general conformity regulations
on November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214). Pursuant to section 51.396 of the
transportation conformity rule and section 51.851 of the general
conformity rule, the State of Ohio is required to submit a SIP revision
containing transportation conformity criteria and procedures consistent
with those established in the Federal rule by November 25, 1994, and
November 30, 1994, respectively. Because the redesignation request was
submitted before these SIP revisions came due, they are not applicable
requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) for the purposes of
evaluating this redesignation request.
Marginal ozone nonattainment areas are subject to the requirements
of section 182(a) of subpart 2. Ohio has met all of the applicable
requirements of that subsection with respect to the Canton and
Youngstown areas. The emission statement SIP required by section
182(a)(3)(B) was approved on October 13, 1994. See 59 FR 51863. An
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) SIP was not required under section
182(a)(2)(B) since these areas were not required to have an I/M program
before the enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments. On September 23, 1993,
the proposed rulemaking on the VOC RACT SIP was published. On May 9,
1994, the final rulemaking was published. This rulemaking gave partial
approval/disapproval, partial limited approval/limited disapproval. A
direct final rulemaking was published on March 23, 1995, providing full
approval of the VOC RACT rules required for Youngstown and Canton. The
emissions inventories were approved in a separate rulemaking, published
on December 7, 1995 (See 60 FR 62737). Finally, the State need not
comply with the requirements of section 182(a)(2)(C) concerning
revisions to the part D NSR program in order for the Canton and
Youngstown areas to be redesignated for the reasons explained above in
connection with the discussion of the section 172(c)(5) NSR
requirement. Since the emissions inventory, emissions statements, and
VOC RACT SIPs are fully approved, the redesignations meet the section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) requirements.
C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must be due to Permanent and
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From the SIP, Federal
Measures and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
In order to meet this requirement, the State should show the change
in an area's emissions from its design value year (this is generally
1988) to an attainment year. The design value year is the year in which
the monitored concentration, used to classify these areas as marginal,
occurred.
In Canton, point source VOC emissions decreased 2.9 tons per day
(TPD) from 1988 to 1993, due to a State permit controlling emissions at
the Smith & Nephew Perry facility in Massillon. Area sources changed
very little between 1988 and 1993. Mobile source VOC and NOX
decreased 15.0 tons per day (TPD) of VOC, and 1.7 TPD, respectively
from 1988 to 1993. These mobile source emission reductions were due to
Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Program (FMVECP) required at 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 86 and the Federal Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP) program (which lowered the RVP of gasoline to 9.0 psi)
required at 40 CFR Part 80. Since both these programs are Federal
programs and are Federally enforceable and permanent, the improvement
in Canton's air quality was due to permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions.
In Youngstown, mobile and point source VOC emissions decreased
approximately 5 TPD, and 1 TPD, respectively, between 1988 and 1990.
The area source emissions were unchanged. This results in a total
change in VOC emissions of approximately 6 TPD (6 percent decrease)
from 1988 to 1990. The majority of this reduction was due to the
FMVECP. Based on this, the improvement in Youngstown's air quality was
due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.
Both the Canton and Youngstown redesignation requests meet the
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) redesignation requirements.
D. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Meeting the
Requirements of Section 175A
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
The maintenance plan is a SIP revision which provides for maintenance
of the relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after
redesignation. A September 4, 1992, USEPA memorandum from the Director
of the Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, to Directors of Regional Air Divisions regarding
redesignation provides further guidance on the required content of a
maintenance plan.
An ozone maintenance plan should address the following five areas:
the attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring
network, verification of continued attainment and a contingency plan.
The attainment emissions inventory identifies the emissions level in
the area which is sufficient to attain the ozone NAAQS, and includes
emissions during the time period which had no monitored violations.
Maintenance is demonstrated by showing that future emissions will
[[Page 3324]]
not exceed the level established by the attainment inventory.
Provisions for continued operation of an appropriate air quality
monitoring network are to be included in the maintenance plan. The
State must show how it will track and verify the progress of the
maintenance plan. Finally, the maintenance plan must include
contingency measures which ensure prompt correction of any violation of
the ozone standard.
The State addresses the attainment inventory, maintenance
demonstration, continued monitoring, tracking plans progress, and the
contingency plan. The State has included emissions summaries for 1990
as the attainment inventories for Canton and Youngstown.
The Canton and Youngstown maintenance plans provide emissions
estimates from 1990 to 2005 for VOCs.1 The emissions are projected
to decrease for both areas. The emissions projections for Youngstown
show an expected 18 percent decrease in total VOC emissions, and almost
a 6 percent decrease in total NOX emissions from 1990 to 2005. For
Canton, the emissions projections show a 15 percent reduction in VOC
emissions and almost a 6 percent reduction in NOX emissions. The
results show that these areas are expected to maintain the ozone air
quality standard for the next 10 years into the future.
\1\ The State used USEPA's MOBILE emission factor model and
vehicle miles travelled projections to estimate future mobile source
emissions in the area.
Table 3.--VOC Emissions in Tons Per Summer Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Area Mobile
Year sources sources sources Totals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990............................................................ 12.36 42.65 31.66 86.67
1996............................................................ 13.01 43.25 18.27 74.53
2000............................................................ 13.46 43.67 16.90 74.03
2006............................................................ 14.07 44.20 15.34 73.61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--NOX VOC Emissions in Tons Per Summer Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990............................................................ 6.74 16.87 16.20 39.81
1996............................................................ 7.17 17.19 14.20 38.56
2000............................................................ 7.51 17.40 13.18 38.09
2006............................................................ 7.96 17.68 12.00 37.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions summaries for VOCs and NOX are provided below for
the Youngstown area:
Table 5.--VOC Emissions in Tons Per Summer Day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Area Mobile
Year sources sources sources Totals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990........................ 16.71 41.28 48.98 106.97
1996........................ 16.38 41.21 31.27 88.86
2000........................ 15.90 41.14 27.58 84.62
2005........................ 15.42 41.11 24.33 80.86
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6.--NOX Emissions in Tons Per Summer Day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Area Mobile
Year sources sources sources Totals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990........................ 23.25 17.99 29.87 71.11
1996........................ 23.30 17.90 27.54 68.74
2000........................ 23.36 17.79 24.11 65.26
2005........................ 23.46 17.70 21.12 62.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State also commits to continuing the operation of the monitors
in both areas. It will also track the maintenance of the areas by
regularly updating the emissions inventories for the areas. The
transportation conformity budgets for 2005 will be 32.16 TPD of VOC and
27.30 TPD of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for Youngstown. These
budgets were chosen by the State of Ohio. The interim years do not set
a budget for transportation conformity. They are based on allocating 30
percent of the VOC emissions safety margin to the mobile source sector
and 70 percent of the NOX emissions safety margin to the mobile
sources sector. The safety margin is the difference in emissions
between the total 2006 emissions and the 1990 emissions for VOC and
NOX. For Canton, the mobile source emissions budgets for 2006 are
15.34 TPD of VOC emissions and 12.0 TPD of NOX. The budgets
provided above for Canton and Youngstown are the only transportation
conformity budgets established by the maintenance plan for these areas.
[[Page 3325]]
The State commits to lower RVP as the contingency measure for
Canton. They also provided the following schedule in Table 4 for
implementing the measure. This measure would be triggered in Canton by
a violation of the ozone standard in Stark County. In order for the
State to user lower RVP gasoline, a finding of necessity must first be
made by USEPA under Section 211(c)(4)(C). If this finding of necessity
is not provided, Ohio EPA has committed to choose an alternative
unspecified emissions control measure deemed appropriate based upon a
consideration of cost-effectiveness, VOC reduction potential, economic
and social considerations, or other factors that the State judges to be
appropriate. This decision would be made and implemented within 12
months from the official notification by USEPA that a waiver would not
be granted.
In the Youngstown area a violation of the standard in Mahoning,
Trumbull, or Mercer County, would trigger the lower RVP measure for
Mahoning and Trumbull Counties. USEPA has to provide a waiver before
the lower RVP measure can be implemented. The State will select a
different measure if USEPA does not provide the waiver. The maintenance
requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) have been met by the Canton
and Youngstown areas.
Table 7.--Schedule for Implementing Lower RVP Gasoline in the Canton and
Youngstown Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Action/event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 15, 1994......................... Submit draft rules to USEPA.
Revisions will be necessary to
accommodate the Youngstown
contingency plan.
October 15, 1994....................... Submit final rules to USEPA.
Trigger event.......................... Monitored violation.
1 month from trigger................... Ohio EPA finding of violation
announced.
Ohio EPA submits request for
program budget.
Ohio EPA hires additional staff
for program.
2 months from trigger.................. Ohio EPA secures lab contracts.
3 months from trigger.................. Ohio EPA purchases needed
equipment.
4 months from trigger.................. Ohio EPA initiates public
awareness program.
Ohio EPA secures lab contracts.
Six months from trigger................ Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
achieve final compliance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Transport of Ozone Precursors to Downwind Areas
Preliminary modeling results utilizing USEPA's regional oxidant
model (ROM) indicate that ozone precursor emissions from various states
west of the ozone transport region (OTR) contribute to increases in
ozone concentrations in the OTR.\2\ The State of Ohio has provided
documentation that VOC emissions will remain below attainment levels
for the next 10 years in the Canton and Youngstown areas. The USEPA is
currently developing policy which will address the long range impacts
of ozone transport. In addition, USEPA is working with the States and
other organizations to design and complete studies which consider
upwind sources and quantify their impacts. Finally, USEPA intends to
address the transport issue through Section 110 based on a domain-wide
modeling analysis.
\2\ The OTR, comprised of eleven Eastern States and the District
of Columbia, has been organized by the authority of section 184(a)
of the CAA for the purpose of facilitating multi-State partnership
to more effectively control ozone transport in the region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Comment and Approval Procedure
The redesignation request is approved as meeting conditions of the
CAA in section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation.
The USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
USEPA views this action as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, USEPA is publishing a separate document
in this Federal Register publication, which constitutes a ``proposed
approval'' of the requested SIP revision and clarifies that the
rulemaking will not be deemed final if timely adverse or critical
comments are filed. The ``direct final'' approval shall be effective on
April 1, 1996, unless USEPA receives adverse or critical comments by
March 1, 1996. If USEPA receives comments adverse to or critical of the
approval discussed above, USEPA will withdraw this approval before its
effective date by publishing a subsequent Federal Register document
which withdraws this final action. All public comments received will
then be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking document. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If
no such comments are received, USEPA hereby advises the public that
this action will be effective on April 1, 1996.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing,
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the
USEPA prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires
the USEPA to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing,
educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the USEPA must
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must
be prepared. The USEPA must select from those alternatives the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the USEPA explains why this
alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative is
inconsistent with law.
Because this final rule is estimated to result in the expenditure
by State, local,
[[Page 3326]]
and tribal governments or the private sector of less then $100 million
in any one year, the USEPA has not prepared a budgetary impact
statement or specifically addressed the selection of the least costly,
most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative. Because small
governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by this
rule, the USEPA is not required to develop a plan with regard to small
governments. This rule only approves the incorporation of existing
state rules into the SIP. It imposes no additional requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.)
Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship
under the Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of the
State action. The Clean Air Act forbids USEPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. USEPA., 427 U.S.
246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 1, 1996. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control.
Dated: December 15, 1995.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraphs (b) (7) and (8)
to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1885 Control strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(7) Stark County.
(8) Mahoning and Trumbull Counties.
* * * * *
PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PURPOSES--OHIO
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401--7671q.
2. In Sec. 81.336 the ozone table is amended by revising the
entries for Stark, Mahoning, and Trumbull Counties to read as follows:
Sec. 81.336 Ohio.
* * * * *
Ohio--Ozone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date\1\ Type Date\1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Canton Area ........................ ........................
Stark County........................ April 1, 1996........... Attainment..............
* * * * * *
*
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area: ........................ ........................
Mahoning County..................... April 1, 1996........... Attainment..............
Trumbull County..................... April 1, 1996........... Attainment..............
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.
[FR Doc. 96-1848 Filed 1-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P