Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[OH66-1-6499A, OH76-1-6900A; FRL-5405-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The USEPA is approving the State of Ohio's State

Implementation Plan revision request to redesignate the Canton (Stark

County), and Youngstown (Mahoning and Trumbull Counties) marginal ozone

nonattainment areas to attainment, and establish ozone standard

maintenance plans for these areas. Ground-level ozone, commonly known

as smog, is an air pollutant which forms on hot summer days which

harmfully affects lung tissue and breathing passages. The redesignation

to attainment of the health-based ozone air quality standard is based

on a request from the State of Ohio to redesignate this area and

approve its maintenance plan, and on the supporting data the State

submitted in support of the requests. Under the Clean Air Act,

designations can be changed if sufficient data are available to warrant

such change, and a maintenance plan is put in place which is designed

to ensure the area maintains ozone air quality standard for the next

ten years.

[[Page 3320]]

DATES: The ``direct final'' is effective on April 1, 1996, unless USEPA

receives adverse or critical comments by March 1, 1996. If USEPA

receives comments adverse to or critical of the approval discussed

above, USEPA will withdraw this approval before its effective date by

publishing a subsequent Federal Register document which withdraws this

final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a

subsequent rulemaking document.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision request and USEPA's analysis

(Technical Support Document) are available for inspection at the

following address: United States Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AR-

18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you telephone

William Jones at (312) 886-6058, before visiting the Region 5 Office).

Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch (AR-18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Jones at (312) 886-6058.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 107(d) of the pre-amended

Clean Air Act (CAA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) promulgated the ozone attainment status for each area of every

State. For Ohio, Canton (Stark County), and Youngstown (Mahoning, and

Trumbull Counties) were designated as a nonattainment area for ozone,

see 43 FR 8962 (March 3, 1978), and 43 FR 45993 (October 5, 1978). On

November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted.

Public Law 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Pursuant to section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, the Canton and Youngstown

areas retained their designation of nonattainment for ozone by

operation of law, see 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). At the same time

these areas were classified as marginal ozone nonattainment areas based

on design values of 0.135 parts per million (ppm) for Canton, and 0.134

ppm for Youngstown. Design values are based upon actual monitoring data

collected in the area. A design value is calculated for each monitoring

site in the area, with the highest monitor design value being the

design value for the area. A design value for each monitor is usually

the fourth highest reading during a three year period. Generally, the

design value has been set from the years 1987 to 1989. Section 181 of

the CAA provides a table establishing classifications for different

areas based upon area design values. Areas with design values of 0.121

ppm up to 0.138 ppm are classified as marginal nonattainment. Mercer

County, Pennsylvania was also included in the Youngstown-Warren-Sharon

marginal ozone nonattainment area, along with Mahoning and Trumbull

Counties, Ohio. An ozone redesignation request was made by Ohio for

Mahoning and Trumbull Counties, but Pennsylvania has not requested

redesignation of Mercer County. In this case it is appropriate to

proceed with the redesignation of the Ohio portion of this ozone

nonattainment area, because: (1) The entire Youngstown-Warren-Sharon

marginal ozone nonattainment area has attained the ozone National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); and (2) Ohio's maintenance plan

contains triggers that rely on the ozone monitor located in Mercer

County, Pennsylvania.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) requested that the

areas be redesignated in letters dated March 25, 1994, (received on

April 5, 1994) and August 15, 1994, (received on August 22, 1994) for

Canton and Youngstown, Ohio, respectively. The public hearing portions

were transmitted to us in letters from Robert Hodanbosi, Chief of the

Division of Air Pollution Control, OEPA, dated August 10, 1994, for

Canton, and November 14, 1994, for Youngstown.

The State provided monitoring, emissions data, and other

documentation to support its redesignation requests. The review

criteria and a review of the requests are provided below.

I. Redesignation Review Criteria

Under the CAA, designations can be changed if sufficient data are

available to warrant such change. The CAA provides the requirements for

redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section

107(d)(3)(E) provides for redesignation if: (i) The Administrator

determines that the area has attained the NAAQS; (ii) The Administrator

has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area

under Section 110(k); (iii) The Administrator determines that the

improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable

reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable

implementation plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control

regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (iv) The

Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as

meeting the requirements of Section 175A; and (v) The State containing

such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under Section

110 and Part D.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has

provided guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following

memoranda and related documents:

1. Inspection/Maintenance Program Requirement--Provisions for

Redesignation (60 FR 1735), January 5, 1995.

2. ``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas

Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Mary D. Nichols, Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994.

3. Conformity; General Preamble for Exemption from Nitrogen Oxides

Provisions, General Preamble for Future Proposed Rulemakings (59 FR

31238), June 17, 1994.

4. ``Section 182(f) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Exemptions Revised

Process and Criteria,'' John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, May 27, 1994.

5. ``Maintenance Plan Requirements for Incomplete/No Data Areas,''

Lydia Wegman, Deputy Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, May 8, 1994.

6. ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for

Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' D. Kent Berry,

Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993.

7. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas

Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and

Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on

or after November 15, 1992,'' Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993.

8. ``Technical Support Document (TSDs) for Redesignating Ozone and

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/

Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993.

9. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response

to Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air

Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992.

10. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to

Attainment,'' John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,

September 4, 1992.

[[Page 3321]]

11. ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Redesignations,'' G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs

Branch, June 1, 1992.

II. Review of the Redesignation Requests

The redesignation requests were reviewed to determine if they meet

the criteria for redesignating an area to attainment.

A. The Area Must Have Attained the Ozone NAAQS

For ozone, an area may be considered attaining the NAAQS if there

are no violations, as determined in accordance with the regulation

codified at 40 CFR 50.9, based on the three (3) most recent consecutive

calendar years of quality assured monitoring data. A violation occurs

when the ozone air quality monitoring data show greater than one (1)

average expected exceedance per year. An exceedance occurs when the

maximum hourly ozone concentration exceeds 0.124 parts per million

(ppm). The data should be collected and quality-assured in accordance

with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the Aerometric Information

Retrieval System (AIRS) in order for it to be available to the public

for review.

Ambient air quality monitoring data show that these two areas

attained the NAAQS for ozone during the 1989 to 1994 time period, and

preliminary 1995 ozone monitoring data continues to demonstrate both

areas' continued attainment.

The ozone monitoring network for Canton consists of four (4)

monitors. In Canton only one (1) exceedance of the ozone standard has

been monitored since 1990; it was 0.130 ppm and occurred at the North

Canton monitor in 1991. The monitoring network for the Youngstown area

consists of four (4) monitors that are located in Mercer, Mahoning, and

Trumbull Counties. The Youngstown area has monitored several

exceedances since 1990 but is not in violation of the ozone standard.

Preliminary monitoring data for 1995 shows only one exceedance at the

Mahoning County Monitor, which is the first exceedance at that monitor

since 1991. This would not result in a violation.

Data stored in AIRS was used to determine the annual average

expected exceedances for the years 1992, 1993, and 1994. Data contained

in AIRS have undergone quality assurance review by the State and USEPA.

Since the annual average number of expected exceedances for each

monitor during the most recent three years is less than 1.0, the Canton

and Youngstown areas are attaining the standard.

Summaries of air quality data for Canton, and Youngstown are

contained in Tables 1 and 2. The areas are currently meeting the

section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) requirement of attaining the ozone NAAQS.

Table 1.--Peak 1-Hour Ozone Concentrations in the Canton Area 1989 to 1994

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

Exceedances Expected

Site County Year measured exceedances

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

Malone College.............................. Stark........................ 1989 0 0.0

Malone College.............................. Stark........................ 1990 0 0.0

Malone College.............................. Stark........................ 1991 0 0.0

Malone College.............................. Stark........................ 1992 0 0.0

Malone College.............................. Stark........................ 1993 0 0.0

Malone College.............................. Stark........................ 1994 0 0.0

245 W 5th St................................ Stark........................ 1992 0 0.0

245 W 5th St................................ Stark........................ 1993 0 0.0

245 W 5th St................................ Stark........................ 1994 0 0.0

6318 Heminger Av............................ Stark........................ 1989 0 0.0

6318 Heminger Av............................ Stark........................ 1990 0 0.0

6318 Heminger Av............................ Stark........................ 1991 1 1.0

6318 Heminger Av............................ Stark........................ 1992 0 0.0

6318 Heminger Av............................ Stark........................ 1993 0 0.0

6318 Heminger Av............................ Stark........................ 1994 0 0.0

City of Alliance............................ Stark........................ 1991 0 0.0

City of Alliance............................ Stark........................ 1992 0 0.0

City of Alliance............................ Stark........................ 1993 0 0.0

City of Alliance............................ Stark........................ 1994 0 0.0

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

Table 2.--Peak 1-Hour Ozone Concentrations in the Youngstown Area 1989 to 1994

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

Exceedances Expected

Site County Year measured exceedances

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

9 West Front St............................. Mahoning..................... 1989 0 0.0

9 West Front St............................. Mahoning..................... 1990 0 0.0

9 West Front St............................. Mahoning..................... 1991 1 1.0

9 West Front St............................. Mahoning..................... 1992 0 0.0

9 West Front St............................. Mahoning..................... 1993 0 0.0

9 West Front St............................. Mahoning..................... 1994 0 0.0

Airport..................................... Trumbull..................... 1991 0 0.0

Airport..................................... Trumbull..................... 1992 0 0.0

Airport..................................... Trumbull..................... 1993 0 0.0

Airport..................................... Trumbull..................... 1994 0 0.0

Community Hall.............................. Trumbull..................... 1992 0 0.0

Community Hall.............................. Trumbull..................... 1993 1 1.0

Community Hall.............................. Trumbull..................... 1994 0 0.0

City of Farrell............................. Mercer....................... 1989 0 0.0

City of Farrell............................. Mercer....................... 1990 0 0.0

City of Farrell............................. Mercer....................... 1991 0 0.0

[[Page 3322]]

City of Farrell............................. Mercer....................... 1992 0 0.0

City of Farrell............................. Mercer....................... 1993 0 0.0

City of Farrell............................. Mercer....................... 1994 0 0.0

M. K. Goddard State Park.................... Mercer....................... 1989 0 0.0

M. K. Goddard State Park.................... Mercer....................... 1990 0 0.0

M. K. Goddard State Park.................... Mercer....................... 1991 0 0.0

M. K. Goddard State Park.................... Mercer....................... 1992 0 0.0

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

B. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k); and

the Area Must Have Met all Applicable Requirements Under Section 110

and Part D

Before the Canton and Youngstown areas may be redesignated to

attainment for ozone, each area must have fulfilled the applicable

requirements of section 110 and part D. USEPA interprets section

107(d)(3)(E)(v) to mean that, for a redesignation request to be

approved, the State must have met all requirements that became

applicable to the subject area prior to or at the time of the

submission of the redesignation request. As the Canton and Youngstown

redesignation requests were submitted to USEPA in March and August

1994, requirements that came due prior to these respective times must

be met for each request to be approved. Requirements of the CAA that

come due subsequent to the submission of the redesignation request

continue to be applicable to the area (see section 175A(c)) and, if the

redesignation is disapproved, the State remains obligated to fulfill

those requirements.

1. Section 110 Requirements

General SIP elements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of Title

I, Part A. These requirements include but are not limited to the

following: submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after

reasonable notice and public hearing, provisions for establishment and

operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures

necessary to monitor ambient air quality, implementation of a permit

program, provisions for Part C (PSD) and D (NSR) permit programs,

criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring,

and reporting, provisions for modeling, and provisions for public and

local agency participation. For purposes of redesignation, the Ohio SIP

was reviewed to ensure that all requirements under the amended Act were

satisfied.

2. Part D Requirements

Under part D, an area's classification determines the requirements

to which it is subject. Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the basic

nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas.

Subpart 2 of part D establishes additional requirements for

nonattainment areas classified under table 1 of section 181(a). As

described in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title 1,

specific requirements of subpart 2 may override subpart 1's general

provisions (57 FR 13501 (April 16, 1992)). The 1990 Amendments to the

CAA reaffirmed the ozone nonattainment status of the Canton and

Youngstown areas and classified the areas as marginal. Therefore, in

order to be redesignated, the State must meet the applicable

requirements of subpart 1 of part D--as well as the applicable

requirements of subpart 2 of part D that apply to marginal areas such

as Canton and Youngstown.

Section 172(c) sets forth general requirements applicable to all

nonattainment areas. Under section 172(b), the section 172(c)

requirements are applicable as determined by the Administrator, but no

later than 3 years after an area has been designated as nonattainment

under the amended CAA. Furthermore, as noted above, some of these

section 172(c) requirements are superseded by more specific

requirements in subpart 2 of part D. In the cases of Canton and

Youngstown, the State has satisfied all of the section 172(c)

requirements necessary for these areas to be redesignated upon the

basis of the redesignation requests submitted on March 25, 1994, and

August 15, 1994.

In the case of marginal ozone nonattainment areas, the section

172(c)(1) Reasonably Available Control Measures was superseded by

section 182(a)(2) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

requirements, which required marginal ozone nonattainment areas that

were previously designated nonattainment to submit RACT corrections.

See General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I, 57 FR at 13503,

and the volatile organic compound (VOC) RACT Fix-up rulemaking

published at 58 FR 49458. Thus, for the Canton and Youngstown areas,

the VOC RACT fix-up SIP must be fully approved. The VOC RACT fix-up SIP

previously submitted by Ohio was given partial approval, partial

disapproval, and partial limited approval/limited disapproval. See the

Federal Register rulemaking dated May 9, 1994, at 56 FR 23796. However,

Ohio made a subsequent submittal to address the VOC RACT requirements

for these areas, for which USEPA has published a direct final approval,

along with a proposed approval action. See the direct final and

proposed rulemakings published in the Federal Register on March 23,

1995 (60 FR 15235, and 60 FR 15270). Consequently, the VOC RACT fix-up

requirements have now been fully approved and became effective on May

5, 1995. Also, by virtue of provisions of section 182(a), marginal

areas were not required to submit a demonstration that the SIP provide

for attainment.

With respect to the section 172(c)(2) Reasonable Further Progress

(RFP) requirement, as the Canton and Youngstown areas have attained the

ozone NAAQS no RFP requirements apply. See General Preamble for the

Implementation of title I, 57 FR at 13564.

The section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirement was addressed

in a separate review and December 7, 1995, rulemaking action on the

1990 base year inventory required under subpart 2 of part D, section

182(a)(1) (See 60 FR 62737). In that action, the inventory was approved

as meeting the section 182(a)(1) requirement. Since the 182(a)(1)

requirement is met, the 172(c)(3) requirement is also satisfied.

As for the section 172(c)(5) NSR requirement, USEPA has determined

that areas being redesignated need not comply with the NSR requirement

prior to redesignation provided that the area demonstrates maintenance

of the standard without part D NSR in effect.

[[Page 3323]]

A memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled Part D New Source Review

(part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to

Attainment, fully describes the rationale for this view, and is based

on the Agency's authority to establish de minimis exceptions to

statutory requirements. See Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F. 2d 323,

360-61 (D.C. Cir. 1979). As discussed below, the State of Ohio has

demonstrated that the Canton and Youngstown areas will be able to

maintain the standard without part D NSR in effect and, therefore, the

State need not have a fully-approved part D NSR program prior to

approval of the redesignation request for these areas. Once the area is

redesignated to attainment, the PSD program, which has been delegated

to Ohio, will become effective immediately. The PSD program was

delegated to Ohio at Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 52.21(u), on

May 1, 1980, and amended November 7, 1988.

The section 172(c)(9) contingency measure requirements also do not

apply to marginal ozone nonattainment areas. Section 182(a) of the CAA

states that section 172(c)(9) (relating to contingency measures) shall

not apply to marginal areas.

Finally, for purposes of redesignation, the Canton and Youngstown

SIPs were reviewed to ensure that all requirements of section

110(a)(2), containing general SIP elements, were satisfied. As noted

above, USEPA believes the SIP satisfies all of those requirements.

Section 176(c) of the Act requires States to revise their SIPs to

establish criteria and procedures to ensure that, before they are

taken, Federal actions conform to the air quality planning goals in the

applicable State SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies

to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or

approved under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act

(``transportation conformity''), as well as to all other Federal

actions (``general conformity'').

The USEPA promulgated final transportation conformity regulations

on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188) and general conformity regulations

on November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214). Pursuant to section 51.396 of the

transportation conformity rule and section 51.851 of the general

conformity rule, the State of Ohio is required to submit a SIP revision

containing transportation conformity criteria and procedures consistent

with those established in the Federal rule by November 25, 1994, and

November 30, 1994, respectively. Because the redesignation request was

submitted before these SIP revisions came due, they are not applicable

requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) for the purposes of

evaluating this redesignation request.

Marginal ozone nonattainment areas are subject to the requirements

of section 182(a) of subpart 2. Ohio has met all of the applicable

requirements of that subsection with respect to the Canton and

Youngstown areas. The emission statement SIP required by section

182(a)(3)(B) was approved on October 13, 1994. See 59 FR 51863. An

Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) SIP was not required under section

182(a)(2)(B) since these areas were not required to have an I/M program

before the enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments. On September 23, 1993,

the proposed rulemaking on the VOC RACT SIP was published. On May 9,

1994, the final rulemaking was published. This rulemaking gave partial

approval/disapproval, partial limited approval/limited disapproval. A

direct final rulemaking was published on March 23, 1995, providing full

approval of the VOC RACT rules required for Youngstown and Canton. The

emissions inventories were approved in a separate rulemaking, published

on December 7, 1995 (See 60 FR 62737). Finally, the State need not

comply with the requirements of section 182(a)(2)(C) concerning

revisions to the part D NSR program in order for the Canton and

Youngstown areas to be redesignated for the reasons explained above in

connection with the discussion of the section 172(c)(5) NSR

requirement. Since the emissions inventory, emissions statements, and

VOC RACT SIPs are fully approved, the redesignations meet the section

107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) requirements.

C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must be due to Permanent and

Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From the SIP, Federal

Measures and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions

In order to meet this requirement, the State should show the change

in an area's emissions from its design value year (this is generally

1988) to an attainment year. The design value year is the year in which

the monitored concentration, used to classify these areas as marginal,

occurred.

In Canton, point source VOC emissions decreased 2.9 tons per day

(TPD) from 1988 to 1993, due to a State permit controlling emissions at

the Smith & Nephew Perry facility in Massillon. Area sources changed

very little between 1988 and 1993. Mobile source VOC and NOX

decreased 15.0 tons per day (TPD) of VOC, and 1.7 TPD, respectively

from 1988 to 1993. These mobile source emission reductions were due to

Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Program (FMVECP) required at 40

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 86 and the Federal Reid Vapor

Pressure (RVP) program (which lowered the RVP of gasoline to 9.0 psi)

required at 40 CFR Part 80. Since both these programs are Federal

programs and are Federally enforceable and permanent, the improvement

in Canton's air quality was due to permanent and enforceable reductions

in emissions.

In Youngstown, mobile and point source VOC emissions decreased

approximately 5 TPD, and 1 TPD, respectively, between 1988 and 1990.

The area source emissions were unchanged. This results in a total

change in VOC emissions of approximately 6 TPD (6 percent decrease)

from 1988 to 1990. The majority of this reduction was due to the

FMVECP. Based on this, the improvement in Youngstown's air quality was

due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.

Both the Canton and Youngstown redesignation requests meet the

section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) redesignation requirements.

D. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Meeting the

Requirements of Section 175A

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance

plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.

The maintenance plan is a SIP revision which provides for maintenance

of the relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after

redesignation. A September 4, 1992, USEPA memorandum from the Director

of the Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, to Directors of Regional Air Divisions regarding

redesignation provides further guidance on the required content of a

maintenance plan.

An ozone maintenance plan should address the following five areas:

the attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring

network, verification of continued attainment and a contingency plan.

The attainment emissions inventory identifies the emissions level in

the area which is sufficient to attain the ozone NAAQS, and includes

emissions during the time period which had no monitored violations.

Maintenance is demonstrated by showing that future emissions will

[[Page 3324]]

not exceed the level established by the attainment inventory.

Provisions for continued operation of an appropriate air quality

monitoring network are to be included in the maintenance plan. The

State must show how it will track and verify the progress of the

maintenance plan. Finally, the maintenance plan must include

contingency measures which ensure prompt correction of any violation of

the ozone standard.

The State addresses the attainment inventory, maintenance

demonstration, continued monitoring, tracking plans progress, and the

contingency plan. The State has included emissions summaries for 1990

as the attainment inventories for Canton and Youngstown.

The Canton and Youngstown maintenance plans provide emissions

estimates from 1990 to 2005 for VOCs.1 The emissions are projected

to decrease for both areas. The emissions projections for Youngstown

show an expected 18 percent decrease in total VOC emissions, and almost

a 6 percent decrease in total NOX emissions from 1990 to 2005. For

Canton, the emissions projections show a 15 percent reduction in VOC

emissions and almost a 6 percent reduction in NOX emissions. The

results show that these areas are expected to maintain the ozone air

quality standard for the next 10 years into the future.

\1\ The State used USEPA's MOBILE emission factor model and

vehicle miles travelled projections to estimate future mobile source

emissions in the area.

Table 3.--VOC Emissions in Tons Per Summer Day

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

Point Area Mobile

Year sources sources sources Totals

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

1990............................................................ 12.36 42.65 31.66 86.67

1996............................................................ 13.01 43.25 18.27 74.53

2000............................................................ 13.46 43.67 16.90 74.03

2006............................................................ 14.07 44.20 15.34 73.61

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

Table 4.--NOX VOC Emissions in Tons Per Summer Day

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

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

1990............................................................ 6.74 16.87 16.20 39.81

1996............................................................ 7.17 17.19 14.20 38.56

2000............................................................ 7.51 17.40 13.18 38.09

2006............................................................ 7.96 17.68 12.00 37.64

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

Emissions summaries for VOCs and NOX are provided below for

the Youngstown area:

Table 5.--VOC Emissions in Tons Per Summer Day

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

Point Area Mobile

Year sources sources sources Totals

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

1990........................ 16.71 41.28 48.98 106.97

1996........................ 16.38 41.21 31.27 88.86

2000........................ 15.90 41.14 27.58 84.62

2005........................ 15.42 41.11 24.33 80.86

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

Table 6.--NOX Emissions in Tons Per Summer Day

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

Point Area Mobile

Year sources sources sources Totals

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

1990........................ 23.25 17.99 29.87 71.11

1996........................ 23.30 17.90 27.54 68.74

2000........................ 23.36 17.79 24.11 65.26

2005........................ 23.46 17.70 21.12 62.28

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

The State also commits to continuing the operation of the monitors

in both areas. It will also track the maintenance of the areas by

regularly updating the emissions inventories for the areas. The

transportation conformity budgets for 2005 will be 32.16 TPD of VOC and

27.30 TPD of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for Youngstown. These

budgets were chosen by the State of Ohio. The interim years do not set

a budget for transportation conformity. They are based on allocating 30

percent of the VOC emissions safety margin to the mobile source sector

and 70 percent of the NOX emissions safety margin to the mobile

sources sector. The safety margin is the difference in emissions

between the total 2006 emissions and the 1990 emissions for VOC and

NOX. For Canton, the mobile source emissions budgets for 2006 are

15.34 TPD of VOC emissions and 12.0 TPD of NOX. The budgets

provided above for Canton and Youngstown are the only transportation

conformity budgets established by the maintenance plan for these areas.

[[Page 3325]]

The State commits to lower RVP as the contingency measure for

Canton. They also provided the following schedule in Table 4 for

implementing the measure. This measure would be triggered in Canton by

a violation of the ozone standard in Stark County. In order for the

State to user lower RVP gasoline, a finding of necessity must first be

made by USEPA under Section 211(c)(4)(C). If this finding of necessity

is not provided, Ohio EPA has committed to choose an alternative

unspecified emissions control measure deemed appropriate based upon a

consideration of cost-effectiveness, VOC reduction potential, economic

and social considerations, or other factors that the State judges to be

appropriate. This decision would be made and implemented within 12

months from the official notification by USEPA that a waiver would not

be granted.

In the Youngstown area a violation of the standard in Mahoning,

Trumbull, or Mercer County, would trigger the lower RVP measure for

Mahoning and Trumbull Counties. USEPA has to provide a waiver before

the lower RVP measure can be implemented. The State will select a

different measure if USEPA does not provide the waiver. The maintenance

requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) have been met by the Canton

and Youngstown areas.

Table 7.--Schedule for Implementing Lower RVP Gasoline in the Canton and

Youngstown Areas

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

Date Action/event

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

March 15, 1994......................... Submit draft rules to USEPA.

Revisions will be necessary to

accommodate the Youngstown

contingency plan.

October 15, 1994....................... Submit final rules to USEPA.

Trigger event.......................... Monitored violation.

1 month from trigger................... Ohio EPA finding of violation

announced.

Ohio EPA submits request for

program budget.

Ohio EPA hires additional staff

for program.

2 months from trigger.................. Ohio EPA secures lab contracts.

3 months from trigger.................. Ohio EPA purchases needed

equipment.

4 months from trigger.................. Ohio EPA initiates public

awareness program.

Ohio EPA secures lab contracts.

Six months from trigger................ Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

achieve final compliance.

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

III. Transport of Ozone Precursors to Downwind Areas

Preliminary modeling results utilizing USEPA's regional oxidant

model (ROM) indicate that ozone precursor emissions from various states

west of the ozone transport region (OTR) contribute to increases in

ozone concentrations in the OTR.\2\ The State of Ohio has provided

documentation that VOC emissions will remain below attainment levels

for the next 10 years in the Canton and Youngstown areas. The USEPA is

currently developing policy which will address the long range impacts

of ozone transport. In addition, USEPA is working with the States and

other organizations to design and complete studies which consider

upwind sources and quantify their impacts. Finally, USEPA intends to

address the transport issue through Section 110 based on a domain-wide

modeling analysis.

\2\ The OTR, comprised of eleven Eastern States and the District

of Columbia, has been organized by the authority of section 184(a)

of the CAA for the purpose of facilitating multi-State partnership

to more effectively control ozone transport in the region.

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

IV. Comment and Approval Procedure

The redesignation request is approved as meeting conditions of the

CAA in section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation.

The USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because

USEPA views this action as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates

no adverse comments. However, USEPA is publishing a separate document

in this Federal Register publication, which constitutes a ``proposed

approval'' of the requested SIP revision and clarifies that the

rulemaking will not be deemed final if timely adverse or critical

comments are filed. The ``direct final'' approval shall be effective on

April 1, 1996, unless USEPA receives adverse or critical comments by

March 1, 1996. If USEPA receives comments adverse to or critical of the

approval discussed above, USEPA will withdraw this approval before its

effective date by publishing a subsequent Federal Register document

which withdraws this final action. All public comments received will

then be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking document. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If

no such comments are received, USEPA hereby advises the public that

this action will be effective on April 1, 1996.

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature

by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the

Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a

July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator

for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing,

or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any

SIP. USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in light

of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded

Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the

USEPA prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule

that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by

State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private

sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires

the USEPA to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing,

educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly

or uniquely affected by the rule.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the USEPA must

identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives

before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must

be prepared. The USEPA must select from those alternatives the least

costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the USEPA explains why this

alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

Because this final rule is estimated to result in the expenditure

by State, local,

[[Page 3326]]

and tribal governments or the private sector of less then $100 million

in any one year, the USEPA has not prepared a budgetary impact

statement or specifically addressed the selection of the least costly,

most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative. Because small

governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by this

rule, the USEPA is not required to develop a plan with regard to small

governments. This rule only approves the incorporation of existing

state rules into the SIP. It imposes no additional requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.)

Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,

and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the

Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve

requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify

that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities

affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of the

State action. The Clean Air Act forbids USEPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. USEPA., 427 U.S.

246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for

judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 1, 1996. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule

does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such

rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings

to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Ozone.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control.

Dated: December 15, 1995.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

2. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraphs (b) (7) and (8)

to read as follows:

Sec. 52.1885 Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(7) Stark County.

(8) Mahoning and Trumbull Counties.

* * * * *

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PURPOSES--OHIO

1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401--7671q.

2. In Sec. 81.336 the ozone table is amended by revising the

entries for Stark, Mahoning, and Trumbull Counties to read as follows:

Sec. 81.336 Ohio.

* * * * *

Ohio--Ozone

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

Designation Classification

Designated area -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date\1\ Type Date\1\ Type

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

* * * * * *

*

Canton Area ........................ ........................

Stark County........................ April 1, 1996........... Attainment..............

* * * * * *

*

Youngstown-Warren-Sharon Area: ........................ ........................

Mahoning County..................... April 1, 1996........... Attainment..............

Trumbull County..................... April 1, 1996........... Attainment..............

* * * * * *

*

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

\1\This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. 96-1848 Filed 1-30-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P