[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 251 (Thursday, December 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 86914]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28974]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL19-80-000]

ITC Great Plains, LLC; Notice of Refund Report

    Take notice that on December 18, 2020, ITC Great Plains, LLC,
(Petitioner), submitted a Refund Report pursuant to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's July 16, 2020 Order.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Kansas Corp. Comm'n v. ITC Great Plains, LLC, 172FERC 61,037
(2020) (July 16 Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on January 8, 2021.

    Dated: December 23, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28974 Filed 12-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 248)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 77678-77690]
[DOCID:fr27de06-32]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0046; FRL-8261-5]

Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of Allen and Stark Counties to Attainment
of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 20, 2005, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA), submitted a request for EPA approval of redesignations of
Allen County (Lima) and Stark County (Canton) to attainment of the 8-
hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), and a request
for EPA approval of ozone maintenance plans for Allen and Stark
Counties as revisions to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Additional supporting information was submitted on August 24, 2006, and
December 4, 2006. EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's requests and
corresponding SIP revisions. EPA is also proposing to approve the
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for Allen and Stark Counties, as
supported by the ozone maintenance plans for these Counties, for
purposes of conformity determinations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 26, 2007. Submit
your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0046, 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-
2006-0046. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18), 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 follow:

I. What Action is 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 Action Is EPA Proposing to Take?

    We are proposing to take several related actions for both Allen
County and Stark County, Ohio. First, we are proposing to determine
that Allen and Stark Counties have attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
that both of these Counties have met the requirements for redesignation
to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA. We are, therefore, proposing to approve the request from the
State of Ohio to change the designations of Allen and Stark Counties
from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Second, we are proposing to approve Ohio's ozone maintenance plans
for Allen and Stark Counties as revisions to the Ohio SIP. The
maintenance plans are designed to keep these Counties in attainment of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years, through 2018. As
supported by and consistent with the ozone maintenance plans, we are
also proposing to approve the 2018 VOC and NOX MVEBs for
Allen and Stark Counties for conformity determination purposes.

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)). 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. 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.
    Ground-level ozone is not generally 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 Federal Register notice
promulgating 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 averages 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).\1\ 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 was 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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, including tighter restrictions on the
sizes of existing VOC and NOX sources required to install
emission controls and tighter restrictions on mandated emission
controls and offsetting of new sources, and have a later attainment
deadline. In contrast, the attainment deadline for basic nonattainment
areas does not depend on the magnitude of the areas' 8-hour ozone
design values, and the required emission controls are less
prescriptive.
    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) at
all monitors in an area and in nearby downwind environs (for further
information, see 69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004). The 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, Allen
and Stark Counties were both designated as subpart 1 nonattainment for
the 8-hour ozone standard. The designations were based on ozone data
collected during the 2001-2003 period.
    On June 20, 2006, the State of Ohio requested redesignation of
Allen and Stark Counties to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based
on ozone data collected in these Counties during the 2003-2005 period.
On August 24, 2006, the State of Ohio completed the ozone redesignation
request by submitting documentation of the public hearings conducted by
the State for the ozone redesignation request and ozone maintenance
plans. The information contained in the State's June 20, 2006 ozone
redesignation request submittal was unchanged through the State's
public review process. On December 4, 2006, the State submitted a
clarification of the State's ozone maintenance plans, confirming that
the State is committed to implement contingency emission control
measures in the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard in
either Allen County or Stark County after these Counties are
redesignated to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard.

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 an
applicable state implementation plan for the area under section 110(k)
of the CAA; (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in
air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions
resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP, Federal air
pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable
emission reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section 175A
of the CAA; and (5) the state containing the area has met all
requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the
CAA.
    EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in 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 (TSD's) 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 determine that Allen and Stark Counties have
attained the 8-hour ozone standard, approve the ozone maintenance plans
for these Counties, and approve the VOC and NOX MVEBs
supported by these ozone

maintenance plans. EPA is also proposing to approve the redesignation
of these Counties to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The bases
for our proposed determinations and approvals follow.

1. Allen and Stark Counties Have Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    For ozone, as noted above, an area may be considered to be
attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations of the
NAAQS, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50
appendix I based on the most recent three complete, consecutive
calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data at all
monitoring sites in the area. 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 a three-year period must not exceed the ozone standard.
Based on the ozone data rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50
appendix I, the 8-hour standard is attained if the area's ozone design
value \2\ is 0.084 ppm (84 ppb) or lower. The data must be collected
and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, and must be
recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The worst-case monitoring site-specific ozone design value
in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the June 20, 2006 ozone redesignation request, Ohio EPA
submitted ozone monitoring data indicating the top four daily maximum
8-hour ozone concentrations for each monitoring site in Allen and Stark
Counties during the 2003-2005 period. These ozone concentrations are
part of the quality-assured ozone data collected and recorded in these
Counties. These data have been entered into EPA's AQS. The annual
fourth-high 8-hour daily maximum ozone concentrations, along with their
three-year averages, are summarized in Table 1.

                                      Table 1.--Fourth-High 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations in Parts Per Billion (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  County                                         Monitoring site                          2003         2004         2005       Average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen.....................................                                                2650 Bible           88           76           81           82
Stark.....................................                                            Malone College           87           74           76           79
Stark.....................................                                            245 West Fifth           85           71           76           77
Stark.....................................                                            1175 West Vine           86           76           86           83
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These data show that the site-specific ozone design values (average
fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations over the period
of 2003-2005) for all monitoring sites in Allen and Stark Counties are
below the 85 ppb ozone standard violation cut-off. These data support
the conclusion that the Allen County and Stark County ozone monitors
did not record a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard during the
2003-2005 period, and monitored attainment of the standard during this
period. We note that the ozone data recorded in the AQS show that these
monitoring sites met completeness requirements for the period covered
here. Based on these data, we propose to find that Allen and Stark
Counties have attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Based on available data (not fully quality assured), these
monitoring sites continue to show attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
through 2006.
    The State of Ohio has committed to continue the operation of these
ozone monitors through the ozone maintenance period, and will consult
with the EPA if changes in the monitoring system are required.

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

    We have determined that Allen and Stark Counties and the State of
Ohio have met all currently applicable SIP requirements for Allen and
Stark Counties, including the requirements under section 110 of the CAA
(general SIP requirements) and the 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, EPA has fully approved the pertinent elements of the Ohio
SIP. See section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. We note that SIPs must be
fully approved only with respect to currently applicable requirements
of the CAA, those CAA requirements applicable to Allen and Stark
Counties at the time the State submitted the final, complete ozone
redesignation request for these areas (August 24, 2006).
a. Allen and Stark Counties Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
    The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum (see ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. To qualify for redesignation of an area to
attainment under this interpretation, the state and the area must meet
the relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the State's
submittal of a complete redesignation request for the area. See also
the September 17, 1993 Michael Shapiro memorandum and 66 FR 12459,
12465-12466 (March 7, 1995, redesignating 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, redesignating 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; programs to enforce
the emission limitations; submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by
the State after reasonable public notice and a hearing; implementation
of a source permit program; 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; criteria for
stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and reporting;
provisions for air quality modeling; and 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 area's designation. EPA
believes that the requirements linked with a particular area's
nonattainment designation and classification are the relevant measures
to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP
submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state
regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state.
    We believe that these requirements should not be construed to be
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. Further, we
believe that the other section 110 elements described above that are
not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and that are not
linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to
these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We
conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are
linked with an area's designation and classification are the relevant
measures for evaluating this aspect of a redesignation request. This
approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of
conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation
purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements.
See: Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-
53176, October 10, 1996 and 62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-
Loraine, 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. Since Allen and Stark Counties are
designated as subpart 1 nonattainment areas for the 8-hour ozone
standard, the subpart 2 part D requirements do not apply to these
Counties.
    Part D, subpart 1 requirements: For purposes of evaluating this
redesignation request, the applicable subpart 1 part D requirements 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,
in an ozone redesignation notice of proposed rulemaking for the St.
Louis area, for a discussion of section 172 requirements.
    No requirements for the 8-hour ozone standard under part D of the
CAA came due for Allen and Stark Counties prior to when the State
submitted the complete ozone redesignation request. For example, the
requirement for an ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in
section 172(c)(1), was not yet due when the State submitted the ozone
redesignation request for these Counties, nor were the requirements for
Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) and Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) (section 172(c)(1)), Reasonable Further
Progress (RFP) (section 172(c)(2)), and attainment plan and RFP
contingency measures (section 172(c)(9)). All of these required SIP
elements are required for submittal after Ohio submitted the complete,
adopted ozone redesignation request and maintenance plans for Allen and
Stark Counties. Therefore, none of the part D requirements for the 8-
hour ozone standard are considered to be applicable to Allen and Stark
Counties 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 that the CAA required the EPA to
promulgate.
    As with other part D requirements, EPA interprets the conformity
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the ozone

redesignation request under section 107(d) of the CAA. In addition,
please note that conformity rules are required for areas that are
redesignated to attainment of a NAAQS, and that 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).
    Part D new source review requirements: EPA has 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 that the area demonstrates maintenance of the standard
without emission reductions from 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
has demonstrated that Allen and Stark Counties will be able to maintain
the 8-hour ozone standard without part D NSR in effect, and therefore,
we conclude that 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 Allen and Stark Counties 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).
    We conclude that Allen and Stark Counties have satisfied all
applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA to the
extent that these requirements apply for purposes of reviewing the
State's ozone redesignation request.
b. Allen and Stark Counties Have a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
    EPA has fully approved the Ohio SIP for Allen and Stark Counties
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 Allen and Stark Counties for purposes of ozone
redesignation. No SIP provisions relevant to Allen or Stark Counties
are currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or partially
approved. As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110
elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not
linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of review of the State's redesignation
request. EPA believes that approval of section 110 SIP elements under
the 1-hour ozone standard satisfies the prerequisite for approval of
the ozone redesignation request for purposes of attaining and
maintaining the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA also believes that since the
part D requirements for the 8-hour ozone standard did not become due
prior to Ohio's submittal of the final, complete redesignation request,
they also are not applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation.

3. The Air Quality Improvements in Allen and Stark Counties Are Due To
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions From Implementation
of the SIP and Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions

    We believe that the State of Ohio has adequately demonstrated that
the observed air quality improvements in Allen and Stark Counties are
due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting from the
implementation of the SIP, Federal measures, and other State-adopted
measures. In making this demonstration, the State has documented the
changes in VOC and NOX emissions from all anthropogenic
(man-made or man-based) sources in Allen and Stark Counties between
2002, an ozone standard violation year, and 2004, one of the years in
which Allen and Stark Counties recorded attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard. The Ohio EPA has also identified permanent and enforceable
emission reductions which occurred elsewhere in the State and in other
upwind areas that have contributed to the air quality improvement in
Allen and Stark Counties. Table 2 summarizes the VOC and NOX
emissions totals from the anthropogenic sources in 2002 and 2004 for
both Counties as summarized in the State's ozone redesignation
submittal.

Table 2.--Total Anthropogenic VOC and NOX Emissions for 2002 and 2004 in
             Allen and Stark Counties (tons per summer day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Source category                     2002         2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Allen County Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................         4.77         4.92
Area..........................................         5.17         5.08
Non-Road Mobile...............................         2.19         2.11
On-Road Mobile................................         7.72         6.51
                                               -------------------------
    Total.....................................        19.85        18.62
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Allen County Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................        12.14        12.57
Area..........................................         0.45         0.47
Non-Road Mobile...............................         5.30         4.85
On-Road Mobile................................        11.71        10.13
                                               -------------------------
    Total.....................................        29.60        28.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Stark County Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................         2.90         2.97
Area..........................................        21.23        21.03
Non-Road Mobile...............................         5.98         5.44
On-Road Mobile................................        16.56        14.03
                                               -------------------------
    Total.....................................        46.67        43.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Stark County Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................         5.12         4.85
Area..........................................         1.17         1.23
Non-Road Mobile...............................        10.06         9.25
On-Road Mobile................................        25.35        22.00
                                               -------------------------
    Total.....................................        41.70        37.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information in the above table indicates that both Counties
experienced decreases in VOC and NOX anthropogenic emissions
between 2002 and 2004. The State of Ohio concludes that the differences
in the 2002 and 2004 emissions are due primarily to the implementation
of permanent and enforceable emission control requirements. The State
asserts that these emission reductions, along with those occurring
elsewhere in the State and in upwind areas, have led to observed
improvements in air quality in Allen and Stark Counties.
    The State notes a significant decline in regional NOX
emissions between 2002 and 2004 as the result of the implementation of
State NOX emission control rules for combustion sources,
primarily Electric Generating Units (EGUs), in compliance with EPA's
NOX SIP call and acid rain control requirements under title
IV of the CAA. Besides the NOX emission reductions occurring
within the State itself, the implementation of statewide NOX
emission control rules occurred in many States east of the Mississippi
River. EPA believes these emission reductions contributed significantly
to the air quality improvements in Allen and Stark Counties through the
reduction of transported ozone and ozone precursors. Although both
Allen and Stark Counties have no significant EGUs, these Counties have
benefited from the NOX emission reductions occurring in the
surrounding areas. These regional NOX emission reductions
are considered to be permanent and enforceable.
    Besides implementation of the regional NOX emission
controls, the State of Ohio notes that, in the mid-1990's, the State of
Ohio promulgated statewide rules requiring Reasonably Available Control
Techniques (RACT) for significant sources of VOC emissions (those with
potential VOC emissions of 100 tons or more per year) whose
construction or modification commenced on or after October 19, 1979.
RACT rules for smaller sources have been implemented in the ozone
nonattainment areas.
    Additional implemented, or soon to be implemented, emission control
rules include several Federal rules: (1) Tier II emission standards for
vehicles and gasoline sulfur content standards (promulgated by EPA in
February 2000 and currently being implemented); (2) heavy-duty diesel
engine emission control rules (promulgated by the EPA in July 2000 and
currently being implemented); and (3) clean air non-road diesel rule
(promulgated by the EPA in May 2004 and currently being phased in
through 2009).
    All of these rules have contributed to reducing VOC and
NOX emissions throughout the State of Ohio (and in other
States surrounding Ohio) and will contribute to further, future
emission reductions in Ohio. The emission limits in the SIP will assure
that these emission reductions will remain in place even after
redesignation of Allen and Stark Counties to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, and the State commits to maintaining these emission
controls after the redesignation.

4. Allen and Stark Counties Have Fully Approvable Ozone Maintenance
Plans Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA

    In conjunction with its request to redesignate Allen and Stark
Counties to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Ohio submitted SIP
revision requests to provide for maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
in Allen and Stark Counties through 2018, exceeding the 10 year minimum
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 Allen and Stark
Counties?
    Ohio EPA prepared VOC and NOX emission inventories for
Allen and Stark Counties, including point (significant stationary
sources), other (area sources, smaller and widely-distributed
stationary sources), Marine, Aircraft, and Railroad (MAR) mobile
sources, non-road (off-road) mobile sources, and on-road mobile sources
for 2002 (the base nonattainment year), 2004 (the attainment year),
2009, and 2018 (the projected maintenance year). To develop the 2004,
2009, and 2018 emission inventories, the Ohio EPA projected the 2002
emissions applying various source category-specific growth factors and
emission control factors. The State has documented how the 2002 base
year emissions were derived and how these emissions were projected to
derive the 2004, 2009, and 2018 emissions. The following summarizes the
procedures and sources of data used by the Ohio EPA to derive the 2002
emissions.
    i. Point Sources. The primary source of point source information
was facility-specific emissions and source activity data collected
annually by the State for sources covered by Title V \3\ source
permits. This information includes emissions, process rates, source
operating schedules, emissions control data, and other relevant source
information. The State also used emissions data provided by EPA's EGU
emission inventory, maintained to support the NOX SIP call
emissions trading program and the acid rain control/trading program.
The sources included in the 2002 point source emissions inventory were
identified using Ohio's Title V STARS database system. The emissions
included in this database are facility-reported actual emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Title V of the CAA requires source-specific emission permits
detailing all applicable emission control requirements and emission
limits, as specified in the SIP, for each source facility covered by
the State's Title V source permit program and requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ohio EPA defines point source emissions as those which occur at an
identifiable stationary stack or vent. Point source emissions not
emitted from discrete stacks or vents are defined to be fugitive
emissions. Facility-specific fugitive emissions are also reported by
each Title V facility and stored in the Title V STARS database.
    Point source emissions included in the 2002 base year emissions
inventory were provided to the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium
(LADCO) 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 Allen and Stark Counties' emissions
derived from this set of emissions data were split into EGU emissions
and non-EGU emissions for inclusion in the base year emissions
inventory used to support the Allen and Stark Counties ozone
redesignation requests. Since no EGUs exist in Allen and Stark
Counties, there are no EGU emissions in these Counties.
    ii. Area (Other) Sources. Area sources are those sources which are
generally small, numerous, and have not been inventoried as specific
point, mobile, or biogenic sources. The emissions for these sources are
generally calculated using various surrogates, such as population,
estimates of employees in various occupational groups, etc., and
grouped by general source types. The area source emissions are
typically defined at the county level.
    Ohio EPA has either used published Emission Inventory Improvement
Program (EIIP) emissions estimation methodologies or other
methodologies typically used by other states to estimate the area
source emissions. Area source categories include: Various stationary
combustion sources (not including the EGU sources included in the point
source portion of the emissions inventory); agricultural pesticides;
architectural surface coatings; auto body refinishing; consumer and
commercial solvent usage; solvent cleaning; fuel marketing; graphic
arts; hospital sterilizers; industrial surface coating (minus point
source emissions for this source category); municipal solid waste
disposal; portable fuel containers; privately owned treatment works;
traffic markings; human cremation; industrial fuel combustion;
residential fuel combustion; structural fires; and miscellaneous source
categories. The State has documented the data sources used for each of
these source categories.
    iii. Non-Road Mobile Sources. The non-road mobile source emissions
inventory was generated regionally by running EPA's National Mobile
Inventory Model (NMIM). The output of the NMIM was converted to the NIF
format and submitted to LADCO for processing in the EMS to obtain
spatially and temporally allocated emissions for a July weekday. The
basic non-road algorithm for calculating emissions in NMIM uses base
year equipment populations, average load factors, available engine
powers, activity hours and emission factors to calculate the emissions.
To address concerns about the accuracy of NMIM results for some source
categories, LADCO contracted with a consultant to review the base data
and to make recommended changes. The non-road mobile source emissions
inventory has been appropriately adjusted based on the contractor
recommendations.
    iv. Marine, Aircraft, and Rail (MAR) Sources. Due to the
significance of the emissions from these mobile source types, the Ohio
EPA has decided to treat these source categories separately from other
non-road mobile sources. The MAR emissions include emissions from
commercial marine, aircraft, and locomotive sources.
    Commercial marine vessels consist of several different categories
of vessel types. For each vessel type, there are unique engine types,
emission rates, and activity data sets. The emissions inventory
documentation lists the vessel types and activity data sources by
vessel type, along with special distribution of each vessel type.
    Locomotive activity was divided into various rail categories: Class
I operations; Class II/III operations; passenger trains; commuter
lines; and yard operations. Since Class I operations are expected to be
the most significant rail operations in the two Counties, operators of
Class I operations were queried for activity and emissions-related
information for each railroad line. This approach provided for more
specific estimates of emissions by railroad line. Class II/III
emissions were based on national fuel consumption and per employee fuel
consumption estimates. The number of railroad employees in each county
was used to allocate the fuel consumption to each county and,
therefore, the emissions to each county. For passenger trains and
commuter lines, the Ohio EPA obtained information from AMTRAK
concerning train schedules, miles of transport, and schedules of
operation. This information was coupled with a fuel usage rate estimate
of 2.35 gallons per train-mile of travel to obtain the total fuel usage
per unit time in each of the Counties. Total fuel use by county was
used to assign emissions from this source category to each county.
    EPA provided the aircraft emission estimates based on Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) published Landing and Take-Off (LTO)
rates by engine type for each airline and major airport in the State of
Ohio. The LTO-engine information was combined with engine type-specific
emission factors developed by the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO), and, through use of a FAA Emissions and

Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS), emissions were calculated and
assigned to each county in the State, including Allen and Stark
Counties.
    The MAR data were processed by LADCO using the EMS to calculate
July 2002 daily emissions of VOC and NOX.
    v. On-Road Mobile Sources. The inventories of on-road mobile source
emissions for both Allen County and Stark County were developed by the
Ohio EPA in conjunction with the Ohio Department of Transportation
(Ohio DOT), LADCO, and EPA. The Ohio DOT provided the daily vehicle
miles traveled data and vehicle age and type distribution data. The
Ohio DOT and the Ohio EPA jointly developed estimated vehicle speeds
for functional roadway class categories (the Ohio DOT also provided the
roadway miles by functional class). Traffic monitoring conducted by the
Ohio DOT was used to modify the vehicle speeds and traffic levels for
specific roadway segments where deemed necessary. 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
Allen and Stark Counties.
    vi. Projected Emissions for the Attainment Year. Ambient ozone air
quality data showed that Allen and Stark Counties met the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the 2003-2005 period. Ohio EPA selected 2004, the central year
of this period, to estimate the ``attainment year'' emissions for both
Counties, needed as the base period emissions for the demonstrations of
maintenance. The 2004 emissions were estimated by growing the emissions
from the 2002 base year emission levels.
    Ohio EPA used point source growth data provided by individual point
source facilities along with other source category-specific growth
estimates and emission control estimates to estimate stationary source
VOC and NOX emissions for Allen and Stark Counties. LADCO
provided growth and source control projection data to project VOC and
NOX area source emissions. The Ohio DOT provided projections
of vehicle travel estimates (Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)) to allow the
projection of mobile source emissions, with MOBILE 6.2 providing the
projected changes in vehicle emission factors. The estimated 2004
emissions have been compared to the 2002 base year emissions to
demonstrate the basis for the improved air quality in Allen and Stark
Counties. See Table 2 above for a summary of the 2004 VOC and
NOX emissions and for a comparison of these emissions with
the 2002 emissions.
    There are no EGU facilities in Allen and Stark Counties, but the
emissions from these source types have been derived by the Ohio EPA for
other Counties in Ohio and have been factored into the State's
demonstration of maintenance. Reductions in NOX emissions in
surrounding counties are assumed to reduce ozone levels in Allen and
Stark Counties through reductions in transported ozone and
NOX.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
    As part of the June 20, 2006 redesignation request submittal, Ohio
EPA requested revisions to the Ohio SIP to incorporate ozone
maintenance plans for Allen and Stark Counties as required under
section 175A of the CAA. The maintenance plans demonstrate maintenance
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2018 by documenting attainment year
and future projected VOC and NOX emissions and showing that
future emissions of VOC and NOX will remain at or below the
attainment year emission levels. An ozone maintenance demonstration
need not to be based on ozone modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426
(6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See
also 66 FR 53094, 53099-53100 (October 19, 2001), and 68 FR 25430-25432
(May 12, 2003).
    The Ohio EPA projected the VOC and NOX emissions in
Allen and Stark Counties to the years of 2009 and 2018 to demonstrate
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after the
expected redesignation dates for these areas. For both Counties, Ohio
EPA used source growth estimates provided by LADCO along with mobile
source growth estimates generated using VMT projections provided by the
Ohio DOT and MOBILE 6.2 to project the Allen and Stark Counties VOC and
NOX emissions.
    Table 3 summarizes the VOC and NOX emissions projected
to occur in Allen County during the demonstrated maintenance period.
Similarly, Table 4 summarizes the VOC and NOX emissions
projected to occur in Stark County during the demonstrated maintenance
period. The State of Ohio chose 2018 as a maintenance year to meet the
10-year maintenance requirement of the CAA, allowing several years for
EPA to complete the redesignation rulemaking process. The State also
chose 2009 as an interim year to demonstrate that VOC and
NOX emissions will remain below the attainment year levels
throughout the 10-year maintenance period.

                      Table 3.--Projected VOC and NOX Emissions In Allen County (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2004         2009         2018        Safety
                        Source sector                          Attainment    Interim    Maintenance     margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions:
    Point...................................................         4.92         5.28         6.44
    Area (Other)............................................         5.08         4.85         4.89
    Non-Road Mobile.........................................         1.98         1.77         1.24
    On-Road Mobile..........................................         6.51        *5.08        *2.89
    Marine-Air-Railroad.....................................         0.13         0.12         0.12
        Total VOC Emissions.................................        18.62        17.10        15.58       **3.04
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions:
    Point...................................................        12.57        13.66        15.98
    Area (Other)............................................         0.47         0.52         0.55
    Non-Road Mobile.........................................         2.29         1.92         1.13
    On-Road Mobile..........................................        10.13        *8.28        *3.47
    Marine-Air-Railroad.....................................         2.56         1.80         1.69
        Total NOX Emissions.................................        28.02        26.18        22.82      **5.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 15 percent growth cushion increase to mobile source budget.
** Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions.

                      Table 4.--Projected VOC and NOX Emissions In Stark County (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2004         2009         2018        Safety
                        Source sector                          Attainment    Interim    Maintenance     margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions:
    Point...................................................         2.97         3.14         3.77
    Area (Other)............................................        21.03        20.49        21.93
    Non-Road Mobile.........................................         5.29         3.92         3.22
    On-Road Mobile..........................................        14.03       *10.02        *5.37
    Marine-Air-Railroad.....................................         0.15         0.14         0.14
        Total VOC Emissions.................................        43.47        37.71        34.43       **9.04
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions:
    Point...................................................         4.85         4.16         4.72
    Area (Other)............................................         1.23         1.40         1.46
    Non-Road Mobile.........................................         6.22         4.81         2.50
    On-Road Mobile..........................................        22.00       *18.03        *7.08
    Marine-Air-Railroad.....................................         3.03         2.39         2.22
        Total NOX Emissions.................................        37.33        30.79        17.98     **19.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 15 percent growth cushion increase to mobile source budget.
** Difference between 2004 attainment year emissions and 2018 maintenance year emissions.

    The Ohio EPA also notes that the State's EGU NOX
emissions control rules stemming from EPA's NOX SIP call and
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), to be implemented after 2006, will
further lower NOX emissions throughout the State and upwind
of Allen and Stark Counties. This will result in decreased ozone and
ozone precursor transport into Allen and Stark Counties, and will
support maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard in these areas.
    The emissions projections for Allen and Stark Counties lead to the
conclusion that Allen and Stark Counties 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
Allen and Stark Counties 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 will be maintained in Allen
and Stark Counties. As also 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 reduce regional
NOX emissions through implementation of their NOX
emission control rules for EGUs and other NOX sources
through the implementation of the NOX SIP call and CAIR.
d. Contingency Plan
    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
continue to implement all measures with respect to control of the
pollutant(s) that were included in the SIP before the redesignation of
the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
    As required by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio has adopted
contingency plans to address possible future ozone air quality problems
in Allen and Stark Counties. The contingency plans have two levels of
actions/responses depending on whether a violation of the 8-hour ozone
standard is only threatened (Warning Level Response) or has actually
occurred or appears to be imminent (Action Level Response).
    A Warning Level Response will be triggered whenever an annual (1-
year) fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone concentration of 88 ppb occurs
in Stark County or an annual fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone
concentration of 85 ppb occurs in Allen County. A Warning Level
Response will consist of a study to determine whether the high 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. If so, the control
measures necessary to reverse the trend will be selected by the State
for evaluation and possible adoption. Implementation of necessary
controls in response to a Warning Level Response triggering will occur
as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 12 months from
the conclusion of the most recent ozone season (September 30).
    An Action Level Response will be triggered whenever a two-year
averaged annual fourth-high monitored 8-hour ozone concentration of 85
ppb occurs within either of the maintenance areas or whenever a
violation of the 8-hour ozone standard is actually monitored in either
of the maintenance areas. An Action Level Response will also be
triggered if a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is recorded in
either Allen County or in Stark County after these two Counties are
redesignated to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 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. If a new
emission control measure is already promulgated

and scheduled to be implemented at the Federal or State level and if
that emission control measure is determined to be sufficient to address
the ozone air quality problem, additional local measures may be
unnecessary. Ohio EPA will submit to the EPA an analysis to 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 subject maintenance area (the area in which the
Action Level Response is triggered). The selection of emission control
measures will be based on cost-effectiveness, emission reduction
potential, economic and social considerations, or other factors that
the Ohio EPA deems to be appropriate. Selected emission control
measures will be subjected to public review and the State will seek
public input prior to selecting new emission control measures. Finally,
emission control measures that can be implemented in a short period of
time will be selected so that they can be in place within 18 months
from the close of the ozone season in which the Action Level Response
is triggered.
    The State's ozone maintenance plans list the following emission
control measures as possible contingency measures:
     Low Reid vapor pressure gasoline;
     Tightening of RACT on existing sources covered by EPA
Control Technique Guidelines issued in response to the 1990 Clean Air
Act amendments;
     Application of RACT to smaller existing sources;
     One or more transportation control measures sufficient to
achieve at least half of a percent reduction in actual area-wide VOC
emissions. The transportation control measures to be considered
include:
    [mshbox] Trip reduction programs, including: employer-based
transportation management plans; area-wide rideshare programs; work
schedule changes; and telecommuting;
    [mshbox] Traffic flow and transit improvements; and,
    [mshbox] Other new or innovative transportation measures not yet in
widespread use that affect state and local governments deemed
appropriate;
     Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit programs for fleet
vehicle operations;
     Controls on consumer products consistent with those
adopted elsewhere in the United States;
     Requirements for VOC or NOX emission offsets
for new and modified major sources;
     Requirements for VOC or NOX emission offsets
for new and modified minor sources;
     Increase of the ratio of emission offsets required for new
sources; and,
     Requirements for VOC or NOX emission controls
on new minor sources (with emissions of less than 100 tons per year).
    No contingency measures will be adopted and implemented without
providing the opportunity for full public participation and comment in
the contingency measure selection process.
    A list of VOC and NOX source types potentially subject
to future emission controls include:
    NOX RACT:
 EGUs
 Asphalt batching plants
 Industrial/commercial and institutional boilers
 Process heaters
 Internal combustion engines
 Combustion turbines
 Other sources with NOX emissions exceeding 100 tons
per year

    VOC RACT:

 Consumer products
 Architectural and industrial maintenance coatings
 Stage I gasoline dispensing facilities
 Automobile refinishing shops
 Cold cleaner degreasers
 Portable fuel containers
 Synthetic organic compound manufacturing
 Wood manufacturing
 Industrial wastewater
 Aerospace industry
 Ship building
 Bakeries
 Plastic parts coating
 Volatile organic liquid storage
 Industrial solvent cleaning
 Offset lithography
 Industrial surface coating
 Other VOC sources with emissions exceeding 50 tons per year
e. Provisions for a Future Update of the Ozone Maintenance Plan
    As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, the State commits to
review the maintenance plans 8 years after redesignation of Allen and
Stark Counties to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and to submit
revised maintenance plans extending the maintenance period for an
additional 10 years. 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. What Are Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets and Are They Adequate?

    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
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. We have opened the public
comment period on the adequacy of the submitted MVEBs for Allen and
Stark Counties at the adequacy review Web site.
    The Allen County and Stark County ozone maintenance plans contain
VOC and NOX MVEBs for 2018. EPA has reviewed the submittal
and the proposed VOC and NOX MVEBs for Allen and Stark
Counties, and finds that the MVEBs meet the adequacy criteria in the
Transportation Conformity Rule. Any comments on the adequacy of the
MVEBs should be noted through the adequacy review Web site.

B. What Is a Safety Margin?

    A ``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment level
of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions
(from all sources) in the maintenance plan for a future maintenance
year. As noted in Tables 3 and 4 above, Allen County is projected to
have a VOC safety margin of 3.04 tons per day and a NOX
safety margin of 5.20 tons per day in 2018, and Stark County is
projected to have a VOC safety margin of 9.04 tons per day and a
NOX safety margin of 19.35 tons per day in 2018 (the
differences between the 2004, attainment year, and 2018 VOC and
NOX emissions for all sources in these Counties).

C. Are the MVEBs Approvable?

    EPA, through this rulemaking, is proposing to approve the MVEBs for
use to determine transportation conformity in Allen and Stark Counties
because EPA has determined that the budgets are consistent with the
control measures and future emissions projected in the SIP and that
Allen and Stark Counties can maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the relevant required 10-year period with mobile source
emissions at the levels of the MVEBs. Ohio EPA has determined the 2018
MVEBs for Allen County as 2.89 tons per day for VOC and 3.47 tons per
day for NOX and the 2018 MVEBs for Stark County as 5.37 tons
per day for VOC and 7.08 tons per day for NOX. These MVEBs
exceed the on-road mobile source VOC and NOX emissions
projected by the Ohio EPA for 2018, but do match the on-road mobile
source emissions for 2018 summarized in Tables 3 and 4 above. Through
discussions with all organizations involved in transportation planning
for Allen and Stark Counties, 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 Allen and Stark Counties can maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with
mobile source emissions at the levels of the MVEBs since total source
emissions with the increased mobile source emissions will remain under
the attainment year levels.
    The VOC and NOX MVEBs for Allen and Stark Counties are
approvable because they maintain the total emissions for Allen and
Stark Counties 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 official
designations of Allen and Stark Counties for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment. Final
rulemaking approving the redesignation request would also incorporate
into the Ohio SIP plans for maintaining the ozone NAAQS through 2018 in
these areas. The maintenance plans include contingency measures to
remedy possible future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and
establishes 2018 MVEBs for these Counties.

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 in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: December 19, 2006.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
 [FR Doc. E6-22156 Filed 12-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P