[Federal Register: January 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 4)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 711-724]
[DOCID:fr08ja07-25]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 7, 2007. Submit
your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0891, by
one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Dunn, Environmental Engineer,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. This supplementary
information section is arranged as follows:

I. What Actions Are EPA Proposing To Take?
II. What Is the Background for These Actions?
III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?
IV. What Are EPA's Analyses of the State's Requests and What Are the
Bases for EPA's Proposed Actions?
V. Has Ohio Adopted Acceptable Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for
the End Year of the Ozone Maintenance Plans Which Can Be Used To
Support Conformity Determinations?
VI. What Are the Effects of EPA's Proposed Actions?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Actions Are EPA Proposing To Take?

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

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

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

II. What Is the Background for These Actions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment?

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

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

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

    EPA is proposing to: (1) Determine that Jefferson County has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard; (2) approve the ozone maintenance
plan for this County and the VOC and NOX MVEBs supported by
the ozone maintenance plan; and, (3) approve the redesignation of this
County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The bases for our
proposed determination and approvals are as follows:
1. Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH Area Have
Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
    Analyses of the attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS are conducted
in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50 appendix I. These
analyses use the most recent three complete, consecutive calendar years
of quality-assured air quality monitoring data at all monitoring sites
in the area and in its impacted downwind environs. To attain this
standard, the average of the annual fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentrations measured and recorded at each monitor (the
monitoring site's ozone design value) within the area and in its
impacted downwind environs over the most recent three-year period must
not exceed the ozone standard. Based on the ozone data rounding
convention described in 40 CFR part 50 appendix I, the 8-hour ozone
standard is attained if the area's ozone design value \4\ is 0.084 ppm
(84 ppb) or less. The data must be collected and quality-assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 50, and must be recorded in EPA's Air
Quality System (AQS). The ozone monitors generally should have remained
at the same locations for the duration of the monitoring period
required to demonstrate attainment (for three years or more).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

monitoring network if changes become necessary in the future. The two
states will continue to quality assure the data to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 58 and all other federal requirements. The data
will be available in real time on the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency's Web site and will be entered into AQS on a timely basis and in
accordance with federal guidelines.
    We find that the ozone monitoring data submitted by the States of
Ohio and West Virginia provide an adequate demonstration that the
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Therefore, we propose to determine that Jefferson County, Ohio, as part
of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area, has attained the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
2. Jefferson County and the State of Ohio Have Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA and This Area Has
a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
    We have determined that Jefferson County and the State of Ohio have
met all currently applicable SIP requirements for Jefferson County
under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We have
determined that the Ohio SIP meets the currently applicable SIP
requirements under subpart 1 part D of title I of the CAA (requirements
specific to basic ozone nonattainment areas). See section
107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA. In addition, we have determined that all
applicable requirements are approved into the Ohio SIP. See section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. In making these determinations, we
determined the CAA requirements which are applicable to Jefferson
County, and determined that the applicable portions of the SIP meeting
these requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA.
We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to currently
applicable requirements of the CAA, which in this case are those CAA
requirements applicable to Jefferson County at the time the State
submitted a complete ozone redesignation request for this area, on
October 3, 2006.
    a. Jefferson County has met all applicable requirements under
section 110 and part D of the CAA. The September 4, 1992, Calcagni
memorandum (see ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992) describes EPA's
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. To qualify for
redesignation to attainment under this interpretation, the state and
the area must meet the relevant CAA requirements that apply at the time
of the State's submittal of a complete redesignation request for the
area. See also the September 17, 1993, Michael Shapiro memorandum, and
66 FR 12459, 12465-12466 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of Detroit-Ann
Arbor, Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS). Applicable
requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the state's
submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a
redesignation of the area to attainment of the standard is approved,
but are not required as prerequisites to redesignation. See section
175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
See also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St.
Louis/East St. Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
    General SIP requirements: Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA
contains the general requirements for a SIP, which include: enforceable
emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques;
provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices
necessary to collect data on ambient air quality; and programs to
enforce the emission limitations. General SIP elements and requirements
are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA.
These SIP elements and requirements include, but are not limited to,
the following: (a) Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the
State after reasonable public notice and a hearing; (b) provisions for
establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor
ambient air quality; (c) implementation of a source permit program; (d)
provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and part D requirements (New Source
Review (NSR)) for new sources or major source modifications; (e)
criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring,
and reporting; (f) provisions for air quality modeling; and, (g)
provisions for public and local agency participation.
    SIP requirements and elements are discussed in the following EPA
documents: ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992; ``State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,''
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, October 28, 1992; and ``State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, September 17,
1993. See also other guidance documents listed above.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires SIPs to contain certain
measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing
to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision,
EPA required states to establish programs to address transport of air
pollutants (NOX SIP call and Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR)). EPA has also found, generally, that states have not submitted
SIPs under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA to meet the interstate
transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA (70 FR
21147, April 25, 2005). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements
for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's
classification. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a
particular nonattainment area's classification are the relevant
measures to evaluate when reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular
area in the state.
    We believe that these requirements should not be construed to be
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. Further, we
believe that the other section 110 elements described above that are
not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and that are not
linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to
these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We
conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are
linked with an area's designation and classification are the relevant
measures for evaluating this aspect of a redesignation request. This
approach is consistent with EPA's policy on applicability of conformity
and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation purposes, as well
as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See: Reading,
Pennsylvania proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October
10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio
final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,

1996); and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7,
1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio
ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).
    We believe that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation.
Nonetheless, we also note that EPA has previously approved provisions
in the Ohio SIP addressing section 110 elements under the 1-hour ozone
standard. We have analyzed the Ohio SIP as codified in 40 CFR part 52,
subpart KK and have determined that it is consistent with the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. The SIP, which has been
adopted after reasonable public notice and hearing, contains
enforceable emission limitations; requires monitoring, compiling, and
analyzing ambient air quality data; requires preconstruction review of
new major stationary sources and major modifications of existing
sources; provisions for adequate funding, staff, and associated
resources necessary to implement its requirements; requires stationary
source emissions monitoring and reporting; and otherwise satisfies the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2).
    Part D SIP requirements: EPA has determined that the Ohio SIP meets
applicable SIP requirements under part D of the CAA. Under part D, an
area's classification (subpart 1, marginal, moderate, serious, severe,
and extreme) indicates the requirements to which it will be subject.
Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the CAA, sets forth
the basic nonattainment area plan requirements applicable to all
nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part D, found in section 182 of the
CAA, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the
area's nonattainment classification.
    Part D, subpart 1 requirements: For purposes of evaluating this
redesignation request, the applicable subpart 1 part D requirements for
all nonattainment areas are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9) and
176. A thorough discussion of the requirements of section 172 can be
found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR
13498). See also 68 FR 4852-4853, a notice of proposed rulemaking for
an ozone redesignation for the St. Louis area, for a discussion of
section 172 requirements.
    No requirements for 8-hour ozone under part D of the CAA came due
for Jefferson County prior to the State's submittal (October 3, 2006)
of a complete ozone redesignation request for this area. For example,
the requirement for an ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in
section 172(c)(1), is not yet applicable, nor are the requirements for
Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) and Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) (section 172(c)(1)), Reasonable Further
Progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2)), and attainment plan and RFP
contingency measures (section 172(c)(9)). Therefore, none of the part D
requirements are applicable to Jefferson County for purposes of
redesignation.
    Section 176 conformity requirements: Section 176(c) of the CAA
requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that
Federally supported or funded activities, including highway projects,
conform to the air planning goals in the applicable SIP. The
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,
programs, and projects developed, funded, or approved under Title 23
U.S.C. and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well
as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (general
conformity). State conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with
Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement
and enforceability, which EPA promulgated pursuant to CAA requirements.
    In addition to the fact that part D requirements did not become due
prior to Ohio's submission of a complete ozone redesignation request
for Jefferson County, and, therefore, are not believed by the EPA to be
applicable for redesignation purposes in this case, EPA similarly
believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements
as not applying for purposes of evaluating the ozone redesignation
request under section 107(d) of the CAA. Further, EPA believes that it
is reasonable to interpret the conformity requirements as not applying
for purposes of evaluating the ozone redesignation request under
section 107(d) of the CAA because state conformity rules are still
required after redesignation of areas to attainment of a NAAQS and
Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been
approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001). See also 60 FR
62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida).
    EPA has also determined that areas being redesignated need not
comply with the requirement that a New Source Review (NSR) program be
approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the standard without part D NSR, since Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements will apply after
redesignation. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in
a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' Ohio
is not relying on reductions from NSR to attain the ozone standard, and
so the State need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to
approval of the redesignation request. The State's PSD program will
become effective in Jefferson County upon redesignation to attainment.
See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7,
1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7,
1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); Grand
Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).
    EPA approved Ohio's general and transportation conformity SIPs on
March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646) and May 30, 2000 (65 FR 34395),
respectively. In its July 31, 2006 submission Ohio included the on-
highway motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) for 2009 and 2018 that
Table 2 outlines. EPA reviewed the budgets for the West Virginia
portion of the Steubenville-Weirton area on October 2, 2006 (71 FR
57905).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We concur with the States that NOX emissions have been
significantly lowered in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. We also
concur with the States that these emission reductions have contributed
to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the Steubenville-Weirton,
WV-OH area. Therefore, the State of Ohio has met this criterion for
redesignation of Jefferson County to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard.
    Besides implementation of the NOX emission control
rules, additional implemented, or soon to be implemented, emission
control rules include several Federal rules: (1) Tier II emission
standards for vehicles and gasoline sulfur standards (promulgated by
EPA in February 2000 and currently being implemented); (2) heavy-duty
diesel engine emission control rules (promulgated by the EPA in July
2000 and currently being implemented; and, (3) clean air non-road
diesel rule (promulgated by the EPA in May 2004 and currently being
phased in through 2009). All of these rules have contributed to
reducing NOX emissions throughout the States of Ohio and
West Virginia and will contribute to future emission reductions in
these States.
    The State of Ohio commits to continuing the existing VOC and
NOX emission controls after the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH
area is redesignated to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.
4. Jefferson County Has a Fully Approvable Ozone Maintenance Plan
Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA
    In conjunction with its request to redesignate Jefferson County to
attainment of the ozone NAAQS, Ohio submitted a SIP revision request to
provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Jefferson County
and in the entire Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area through 2018,
exceeding the minimum 10 year maintenance period required by the CAA.
    a. What Is Required in an Ozone Maintenance Plan? Section 175A of
the CAA sets forth the required elements of air quality maintenance
plans for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment
of a NAAQS. Under section 175A, a maintenance plan must demonstrate
continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years
after the Administrator approves the redesignation to attainment. Eight
years after the redesignation, the State must submit a revised
maintenance plan which demonstrates that maintenance of the standard
will continue for 10 years following the initial 10 year maintenance
period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, with a
schedule for implementation, as EPA deems necessary, to assure prompt
correction of any future NAAQS violations. The September 4, 1992 John
Calcagni memorandum provides additional guidance on the content of
maintenance plans. An ozone maintenance plan should, at minimum,
address the following items: (1) The attainment VOC and NOX
emissions inventories; (2) a maintenance demonstration showing
maintenance for the first 10 years of the maintenance period; (3) a
commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network; (4) factors and
procedures to be used for verification of continued attainment; and,
(5) a contingency plan to prevent and/or correct a future violation of
the NAAQS.
    b. What Are the Attainment Emission Inventories for Jefferson
County? Ohio EPA prepared comprehensive VOC and NOX emission
inventories for Jefferson County, including EGU and non-EGU point
(significant stationary sources), other (smaller and widely-distributed
stationary sources that are also called area sources), Marine,
Aircraft, and Rail mobile (MAR), mobile on-road, and mobile non-road
sources for 2002 (the base year). To develop the attainment year (2004)
and projected maintenance

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

emissions for its portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. The
estimated 2004 emissions have been compared to the 2002 emissions to
demonstrate the basis for the improved air quality in the Steubenville-
Weirton, WV-OH area. See Table 3 above for the 2004 attainment level
emissions.
    c. Demonstration of Maintenance. As part of the July 31, 2006,
redesignation request submittal, Ohio EPA included a requested revision
to the Ohio SIP to incorporate an ozone maintenance plan for Jefferson
County. This plan demonstrates maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
through 2018 by documenting current and projected VOC and
NOX emissions and showing that future emissions of VOC and
NOX will remain at or below the attainment year emission
levels. A maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. See
Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d
537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099-53100 (October 19,
2001) and 68 FR 25430-25432 (May 12, 2003).
    The State of Ohio and the State of West Virginia projected the VOC
and NOX emissions in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area
for the years of 2009 and 2018 to demonstrate maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after the expected redesignation
dates for this area. For Jefferson County, Ohio EPA used source growth
estimates provided by LADCO along with mobile source growth estimates
generated using the regional transportation model and MOBILE 6.2 to
project the Jefferson County VOC and NOX emissions. The
methods used by the State of West Virginia are described in West
Virginia's ozone redesignation request (reviewed by EPA on October 2,
2006 (71 FR 57905)).
    Table 4 summarizes the VOC emissions projected to occur in
Jefferson County, Ohio and in Hancock and Brooke Counties, West
Virginia during the demonstrated ozone maintenance period. Similarly,
Table 5 summarizes the NOX emissions projected to occur in
the same area during the demonstrated ozone maintenance period. The
State of Ohio and the State of West Virginia chose 2018 as a projection
year to meet the 10-year maintenance demonstration requirement,
allowing several years for EPA to complete the redesignation rulemaking
process. The States also chose 2009 as an interim year to demonstrate
that VOC and NOX emissions will remain below the attainment
year levels throughout the 10-year maintenance period.

                    Table 4.--Projected VOC Emissions in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH Area
                                                   [tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2004         2009         2018        Safety
                        Source sector                          Attainment    Interim    Maintenance     margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Jefferson County, Ohio VOC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU Point...................................................          0.9          1.0          1.0  ...........
Non-EGU Point...............................................          0.2          0.2          0.2  ...........
Area (Other)................................................          3.1          2.9          2.9  ...........
Non-Road Mobile.............................................          0.9          0.8          0.6  ...........
On-Road Mobile..............................................          3.6         *2.6         *1.4  ...........
Marine-Air-Railroad.........................................          0.1          0.1          0.1  ...........
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total Jefferson County..................................          8.8          7.6          6.2        **2.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia VOC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU Point...................................................            0            0            0  ...........
Non-EGU Point...............................................          4.8          4.3          5.3  ...........
Area (Other)................................................          4.6          4.5          5.2  ...........
Non-Road Mobile (MAR included)..............................          1.5          1.2          1.0  ...........
On-Road Mobile..............................................          2.6         *2.0         *1.0
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total Hancock and Brooke Counties.......................         13.5         12.0         12.5        **1.0
    Total Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH.......................         22.3         19.6         18.7       **3.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 15 percent mobile source budget increase as a safety margin. Actual projected 2018 on-road mobile
  source VOC emissions in Jefferson County are 1.19 tons per day. In Brooke and Hancock Counties, the actual
  projected 2018 on-road mobile source VOC are 0.88 tons per day.
** Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions.

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

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

    The Ohio EPA also notes that the State's EGU NOX
emissions control rules stemming from EPA's NOX SIP call and
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), to be implemented beyond 2006, will
further lower NOX emissions in upwind areas, resulting in
decreased ozone and ozone precursor transport into Jefferson County and
the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. This will also support
maintenance of the ozone standard in this area, which particularly
benefits from the NOX SIP call and CAIR. These two
regulations focus on utility emissions in the Eastern United States and
impose a permanent cap on overall emissions from affected sources. This
cap is likely to minimize growth of this very important component of
emissions in the Steubenville-Weirton area.
    The emission projections for Jefferson County and the Steubenville-
Weirton, WV-OH area as a whole coupled with the expected impacts of the
States' EGU NOX rules and CAIR lead to the conclusion that
Jefferson County and the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area should
maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS throughout the required 10-year
maintenance period and through 2018. The projected decreases in local
VOC and local and regional NOX emissions indicate that peak
ozone levels in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area may actually
further decline during the maintenance period.
    Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the
attainment year emissions, we conclude that Ohio EPA has successfully
demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone standard can be maintained in
Jefferson County and in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. We
believe that this is especially likely given the expected impacts of
the NOX SIP call and CAIR. As noted by Ohio EPA, this
conclusion is further supported by the fact that other states in the
eastern portion of the United States are also expected to further
reduce regional NOX emissions through implementation of
their ozone NOX emission control rules for EGUs and other
NOX sources through the implementation of the NOX
SIP call and CAIR.
    d. Contingency Plan. The contingency plan provisions of the CAA are
designed to result in prompt correction or prevention of violations of
the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation of an area to attainment
of the NAAQS. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that
the State will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that might
occur after redesignation. The maintenance plan must identify the
contingency measures to be considered for possible adoption, a schedule
and procedure for adoption and implementation of the selected
contingency measures, and a time limit for action by the State. The
State should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine
when the contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The
maintenance plan must include a requirement that the State will
implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant(s) that
were included in the SIP before the redesignation of the area to
attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
    As required by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio has adopted a
contingency plan to address a possible future ozone air quality problem
in the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area. The contingency plan has two
levels of actions/responses depending on whether a violation of the 8-
hour ozone standard is only threatened (Warning Level Response) or has
actually occurred or appears to be very imminent (Action Level
Response).
    A Warning Level Response will be triggered whenever an annual (1-
year) fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone concentration of 88 ppb occurs
within the ozone maintenance area (within the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-
OH area). A Warning Level Response will consist of a study to determine
whether the ozone value indicates a trend toward higher ozone
concentrations and/or whether emissions appear to be increasing. The
study will evaluate whether the trend, if any, is likely to continue
and, if so, the control measures necessary to reverse the trend. This
would involve taking into consideration ease and timing for
implementation, as well as economic and social considerations.
Implementation of necessary controls in response to a Warning Level
Response will take place as expeditiously as possible, but in no event
later than 12 months from the conclusion of the most recent ozone
season.
    An Action Level Response will be triggered whenever a two-year
averaged annual fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone concentration of 85
ppb or greater occurs within the maintenance area. A violation of the
8-hour ozone standard (three-year average fourth-high value of 85 ppb
or greater) will also prompt an Action Level Response. In the event
that an Action Level Response is triggered and is not due to an
exceptional event, malfunction, or noncompliance with a source permit
condition or rule requirement, Ohio EPA will determine the additional
emission control measures needed to assure future attainment of the
ozone NAAQS. Emission control measures that can be implemented in a
short time will be selected in order to be in place within

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, SIP
revisions and ozone maintenance plans for applicable areas (for ozone
nonattainment areas and for areas seeking redesignations to attainment
of the ozone standard or revising existing ozone maintenance plans).
These emission control SIP revisions (e.g. reasonable further progress
and attainment demonstration SIP revisions), including ozone
maintenance plans, must create MVEBs based on on-road mobile source
emissions that are allocated to highway and transit vehicle use that,
together with emissions from other sources in the area, will provide
for attainment or maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.
    Under 40 CFR part 93, MVEBs for an area seeking a redesignation to
attainment of the NAAQS are established for the last year of the
maintenance plan (for the maintenance demonstration year). The MVEBs
serve as ceilings on mobile source emissions from an area's planned
transportation system and are used to test planned transportation
system changes or projects to assure compliance with the emission
limits assumed in the SIP. The MVEB concept is further explained in the
preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58
FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEBs in
the SIP and how to revise the MVEBs if needed.
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be
consistent with) the part of the SIP that addresses emissions from
cars, trucks, and other on-roadway vehicles. Conformity to the SIP
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality
standard violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a
transportation plan does not conform, most new transportation projects
that would expand the capacity of the roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA's policy, criteria, and
procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of transportation
activities to a SIP.
    When reviewing SIP revisions containing MVEBs, including attainment
strategies, rate-of-progress

plans, and maintenance plans, EPA must affirmatively find that the
MVEBs are ``adequate'' for use in determining transportation
conformity. Once EPA finds the submitted MVEBs to be adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, the MVEBs are used by state and
Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation
projects conform to the SIPs as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
EPA's substantive criteria for determining the adequacy of MVEBs are
specified in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
    EPA's process of determining adequacy of MVEBs consists of three
basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEBs during a
public comment period; and, (3) making a finding of adequacy. The
process of determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was
initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999, guidance, ``Conformity
Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court
Decision.'' This guidance was finalized in the Transportation
Conformity Rule Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Miscellaneous Rule Amendments--Response to Court Decision and
Additional Rule Change'' published on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). EPA
follows this guidance and rulemaking in making its adequacy
determinations.
    The Transportation Conformity Rule, in 40 CFR 93.118(f), provides
for adequacy findings through two mechanisms. First, 40 CFR
93.118(f)(1) provides for posting a notice to the EPA conformity Web
site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm

and providing a 30-day public comment period. Second, a mechanism is
described in 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2) which provides that EPA can review the
adequacy of an implementation plan submission simultaneously with its
review of the implementation plan itself. In this notice, EPA is
reviewing the adequacy of the Jefferson County motor vehicle emission
budgets as part of the review and proposal on the overall ozone
maintenance plan. The State of Ohio had previously requested parallel
processing and the expediency of this review process is best suited to
following the 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2) mechanism.
    Ohio and West Virginia are managing mobile source emissions in the
Steubenville-Weirton area by establishing separate MVEBs for their
respective portions of this area. EPA has proposed approval of the
NOX and VOC MVEBs for the West Virginia portion of the
Steubenville-Weirton area in the Federal Register (71 FR 57905) on
October 2, 2006. The Jefferson County ozone maintenance plan contains
VOC and NOX MVEBs for 2009 and 2018. EPA has reviewed these
MVEBs for Jefferson County and finds that they meet the adequacy
criteria in the Transportation Conformity Rule. Furthermore, EPA,
through this rulemaking, is proposing to approve the MVEBs for use to
determine transportation conformity in Jefferson County. EPA has
determined that the budgets are consistent with the control measures
and future emissions projected in the SIP and that Jefferson County and
the Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area can maintain attainment of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS for the relevant required 10-year period with mobile
source emissions at the levels of the MVEBs. Table 2 contains the 2009
and 2018 VOC and NOX MVEBs for Jefferson County. Ohio EPA
decided to include 15 percent safety margins in the MVEBs to provide
for mobile source growth not anticipated in the projected 2018
emissions.
    Ohio EPA has demonstrated that Jefferson County and the
Steubenville-Weirton, WV-OH area can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
with mobile source emissions at the levels of the MVEBs since total
source emissions, even with the increased mobile source emissions, will
remain under the attainment year levels in both Jefferson County and
the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton area.

B. What Is a Safety Margin?

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

C. Are the MVEBs Approvable?

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

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

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

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

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

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

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

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

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

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

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

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

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

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Kerry Leifer, Branch Chief (Acting), Chemistry/Inerts/Toxicology Branch, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
BASF Corporation

EPA has received a pesticide petition, IN-11282, from BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for Bacillus thuringiensis strain EX 297512 whole broth, under 40 CFR 180.920 for seed treatment use only when used as an inert ingredient (carrier, diluent) in pesticide formulations without limitation.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.  Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry
	1.  Plant metabolism:  Not Applicable
	2.  Analytical method:  Not Applicable
	3.  Magnitude of residues:  Not Applicable

B. Toxicological Profile

For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, Bacillus thuringiensis strain EX 297512 whole broth is considered low risk.  The bioinformatics report (MRID # 50738908) confirms the absence betaexotoxin I and beta-exotoxin II.  In addition, the acute toxicology studies and the human safety assessment report (MRID#50738907) indicated no concerns for toxicity with the preparation or the strain.  The summary report (MRID# 50738909 and references therein) supports the claim of low risk and an exemption from tolerance.

C. Aggregate Exposures

For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, Bacillus thuringiensis strain EX 297512 whole broth could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure are not of concern. Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is justified.

D. Cumulative Effects

Section 408 (b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance or tolerance exemption, "available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular chemical's residues and "other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity'', must be considered. Bacillus thuringiensis strain EX 297512 whole broth is not expected to contribute to any cumulative effects.

E. Determination of Safety

Section 408 of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the low toxicity of Bt EX297512 and Bt strains more generally, especially the Bt israelensis strain from which Bt EX297512 is derived, and minimal anticipated exposures, additional tenfold safety factor is not necessary.

Based on established safety profile of Bt EX297512 and similar strains referenced in the summary report (MRID# 50738909 and references therein), there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure.

F. International Tolerances

There are no CODEX maximum residue limits established for Bt EX297512 in or on crops or commodities at this time.

G. Other Considerations

Endocrine Disruptors:  There is no available data nor evidence to suggest that Bt EX297512 is an endocrine disruptor.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 198 (Wednesday, October 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 61815]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26140]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OA-2015-0002; FRL 9935-72-OA]

Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee (FRRCC); Notice of
Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby provides notice of a
meeting of the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee (FRRCC).
This meeting is open to the public. Members of the public are
encouraged to provide comments relevant to the specific issues being
considered by the FRRCC. For additional information about registering
for public comment, please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section. Due to limited space, seating at the FRRCC meeting will be
limited to a first-come, first-served basis.

DATES: The Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee will convene on
Thursday, October 22, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. (Mountain
Time).
    One public comment period relevant to specific issues being
considered by the FRRCC is schedule for Thursday, October 22, 2015,
from 1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. (Mountain Time). Members of the public who
wish to participate during the public comment period are encouraged to
pre-register by noon, (Eastern Standard Time), on Thursday, October 15,
2015.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Colorado Department of
Agriculture. The street address is 305 Interlocken Parkway, Broomfield,
Colorado 80021. The meeting is open to the public with limited seating
on a first-come, first-served basis.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions or correspondence concerning
this meeting should be directed to Cheryl Woodward, US EPA, Office of
the Administrator (MC1101A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20460; via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or via telephone at
202-564-1274.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FRRCC is a policy-oriented committee
that provides policy advice, information, and recommendations to the
EPA Administrator on a range of environmental issues and policies that
are of importance to agriculture and rural communities.
    The purpose of this meeting is to advance discussion of specific
topics of unique relevance to agriculture such as exploring best
practices to maintain soil health, the impact of soil health as it
relates to air and water quality and the relationship between soil
health and extreme weather events across the country, in such a way as
to provide thoughtful advice and useful insights to the Agency as it
crafts environmental policies and programs that affect and engage
agriculture and rural communities. A copy of the meeting agenda will be
posted at http://www2.epa.gov/faca/frrcc.
    Public Comment: Individuals or groups making oral presentations
during the public comment period will be limited to a total
presentation time of five minutes. To accommodate large groups
addressing the FRRCC, only one representative of an organization or
group will be allowed to speak during the designated public comment
period. Written comments received by noon, (Eastern Standard Time),
October 15, 2015, will be included in the materials distributed to
members of the FRRCC. Written comments received after that date and
time will be provided to the FRRCC as time allows. Requests to make
brief oral comments or provide written statements to the FRRCC should
be sent to Cheryl Woodward at the contact information above.
    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Cheryl Woodward at 202-
564-1274 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request special accommodations,
please contact Cheryl Woodward, preferably at least four working days
prior to the meeting, to allow sufficient time to process your request.

    Dated: October 7, 2015.
Ron Carleton,
Counselor to the Administrator for Agricultural Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-26140 Filed 10-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P