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

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: May 7, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 89)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20458-20473]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[OH92-1 & OH79-3; FRL-5458-8]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The USEPA is determining that the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain (CAL)
ozone nonattainment area (which includes the Counties of Ashtabula,
Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage and Summit) has
attained the public health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for ozone. This determination is based upon three years of
complete, quality-assured, ambient air monitoring data for the 1993 to
1995 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the ozone NAAQS has been
attained in each of these areas. On the basis of this determination,
USEPA is also determining that certain reasonable-further-progress
(RFP) and attainment demonstration requirements, along with certain
other related requirements, of Part D of Title 1 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) are not applicable to the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area.
In another part of this rulemaking, the USEPA is approving the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) request to revise the official
designation of the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain (CAL) area as an area that is
meeting the ozone air quality standard. The USEPA is also approving the
CAL area maintenance plan as a revision to Ohio's State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for ozone. The purpose of the maintenance plan is to provide
for continued good ozone air quality levels in the area over the next
10 years.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on May 7, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the determination of attainment, redesignation
requests, public comments on the rulemaking, and other materials
relating to this rulemaking are available for inspection at the
following address: (It is recommended that you telephone William Jones
at (312) 886-6058, before visiting the Region 5 Office.) United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard (AR-18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS ACTION CONTACT: William Jones, Air
Programs Branch, Regulation Development Section (AR-18J), United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312) 886-6058.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Determination of Attainment

I. Background

Subpart 2 of Part D of Title I of the CAA contains various air
quality planning and state implementation plan (SIP) submission
requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. The USEPA believes it is
reasonable to interpret provisions regarding RFP and attainment
demonstrations, along with certain other related provisions, so as not
to require SIP submissions if an ozone nonattainment area subject to
those requirements is monitoring attainment of the ozone standard
(i.e., attainment of the NAAQS demonstrated with three consecutive
years of complete, quality-assured, air quality monitoring data). As
described below, USEPA has previously interpreted the general
provisions of subpart 1 of part D of Title I (sections 171 and 172) so
as not to require the submission of SIP revisions concerning RFP,
attainment demonstrations, or contingency measures. As explained in a
memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, entitled ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' dated May
10, 1995, USEPA believes it is appropriate to interpret the more
specific RFP, attainment demonstration and related provisions of
subpart 2 in the same manner.

First, with respect to RFP, section 171(1) of the CAA states that,
for purposes of part D of Title I, RFP ``means such annual incremental
reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required
by this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the
purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the
applicable date.'' Thus, whether dealing with the general RFP
requirement of section 172(c)(2), or the more specific RFP requirements
of subpart 2 for classified ozone nonattainment areas (such as the 15
percent plan requirement of section 182(b)(1)), the stated purpose of
RFP is to ensure attainment by the applicable attainment date.<SUP>1 If
an area has in fact attained the standard, the stated purpose of the
RFP requirement will have already been fulfilled and USEPA does not
believe that the area need submit revisions providing for the further
emission reductions described in the RFP provisions of section
182(b)(1).

\1\ USEPA notes that paragraph (1) of subsection 182(b) is
entitled ``PLAN PROVISIONS FOR REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS'' and
that subparagraph (B) of paragraph 182(c)(2) is entitled
``REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS DEMONSTRATION,'' thereby making it
clear that both the 15 percent plan requirement of section 182(b)(1)
and the 3 percent per year requirement of section 182(c)(2) are
specific varieties of RFP requirements.

The USEPA notes that it took this view with respect to the general
RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2) in the General Preamble for the
Interpretation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)), and it is now extending that interpretation
to the specific provisions of subpart 2. In the General Preamble, USEPA
stated, in the context of a discussion of the requirements applicable
to the evaluation of requests to redesignate nonattainment areas to
attainment, that the ``requirements for RFP will not apply in
evaluating a request for redesignation to attainment since, at a
minimum, the air quality data for the area must show that the area has
already attained. Showing that the State will make RFP towards
attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that point.'' (See 57 FR
at 13564) <SUP>2

\2\ See also ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,'' from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, September
4, 1992, at page 6 (stating that the ``requirements for reasonable
further progress * * * will not apply for redesignations because
they only have meaning for areas not attaining the standard'')
(hereinafter referred to as ``September 1992 Calcagni memorandum'').

Second, with respect to the attainment demonstration requirements
of Section 182(b)(1), an analogous rationale leads to the same result.
Section 182(b)(1) requires that the plan provide for ``such specific
annual reductions in emissions * * * as necessary to attain the
national primary ambient air quality standard by the attainment date
applicable under this Act.'' As with the RFP requirements, if an area
has in fact monitored attainment of the standard, USEPA believes there
is no need for an area to make a further submission containing
additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also consistent with
the interpretation of certain section 172(c) requirements provided by
USEPA in the General Preamble to Title I. As USEPA stated in the
Preamble, no other measures to provide for attainment would be needed
by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since ``attainment will
have been reached.'' (57 FR at 13564; see also September 1992 Calcagni
memorandum

[[Page 20459]]

at page 6). Upon attainment of the NAAQS, the focus of state planning
efforts shifts to the maintenance of the NAAQS and the development of a
maintenance plan under Section 175A.

Similar reasoning applies to other related provisions of subpart 2.
The first of these are the contingency measure requirements of section
172(c)(9) of the Act. The USEPA has previously interpreted the
contingency measure requirement of section 172(c)(9) as no longer being
applicable once an area has attained the standard since those
``contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by
the applicable date.'' (57 FR at 13564; see also September 1992
Calcagni memorandum at page 6).

The State must continue to operate an appropriate air quality
monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the
attainment status of the area. The air quality data relied upon to
determine that the area is attaining the ozone standard must be
consistent with 40 CFR part 58 requirements and other relevant USEPA
guidance and recorded in USEPA's--Aerometric Information Retrieval
System (AIRS).

The determinations made in this notice do not shield an area from
future USEPA action to require emissions reductions from sources in the
area where there is evidence, such as photochemical grid modeling,
showing that emissions from sources in the area contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by,
any other States with respect to the NAAQS (see section 110(a)(2)(D)).
The USEPA has authority under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(D) of
the Act to require such emission reductions if necessary and
appropriate to deal with transport situations.
Analysis of Air Quality Data

The USEPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for ozone
(consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 58 and
recorded in AIRS) for the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain ozone nonattainment
area in Ohio from the 1992 through 1995 ozone seasons. The following
ozone exceedances were recorded for the period from 1993 to 1995 (and
the average number of expected exceedances for this three-year period
is also presented):

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain: Medina County, 6364 Deerview Lane (1994)--
0.127 parts per million (ppm); average expected exceedances: 0.3.
Cuyahoga County, 891 E. 152 St. (1993)--0.126 ppm, (1994) 0.127 ppm and
0.125 ppm; average expected exceedances: 1.0. Data for 1995 shows no
new exceedances of the ozone NAAQS were monitored in the ClevelandAkron
-Lorain area.

On the basis of this review, USEPA determines that the area has
attained the ozone standard during the 1993-95 period, which is the
most recent three-year time period of air quality monitoring data, and
therefore are not required to submit a 15 2.121996e-313missions reduction plan,
attainment demonstration, and a section 172(c)(9) contingency measure
plan. See the June 29, 1995, proposed rulemaking published in the
Federal Register at 60 FR 31433.

Public Comment/USEPA Response

These are the comments and responses that relate to the
determination of attainment for the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area.
Comments that were received in support of the determination are not
summarized below; only the adverse comments are summarized and
responses are provided to these comments. No further action will be
taken on the determination of attainment for the Dayton and Toledo
areas since those areas have already been redesignated to attainment.
In a later part of this rulemaking comments and responses are provided
on the ozone redesignation request for the CAL area. Because of the
potential for overlap of comments received on the issue of the
determination of attainment and the redesignation, USEPA hereby
incorporates by reference the responses contained in the section below
on redesignation to the extent that they bear on the issues involved in
the determination of attainment, and vice versa. To the extent that
comments can be construed to bear on both rulemaking actions, responses
should be construed to pertain to both.
(1) Comment: The determination action has been inappropriately
segregated from the section 110(a)(2)(D) petition submitted by the
State of New York which requested the Federal government to assess the
implementation plans of upwind states to determine their contribution
to nonattainment in the State of New York. Regional Oxidant Modeling
indicates that areas to the west of the State of New York, including
the State of Ohio, contribute to violations of the ozone NAAQS in the
northeast United States, including the State of New York. Therefore
these areas should continue to meet the statutory reasonable further
progress requirements set forth in the Clean Air Act, at least until
the State of New York's section 110(a)(2)(D) request has been acted on.
(1) Response: The issue of transported emissions is not relevant to
this rulemaking action. The purpose of the requirements of section
182(b)(1) concerning reasonable further progress and attainment
demonstration and the contingency measure requirements of section
172(c)(9) as they apply to CAL is not to address emissions from that
area that may cause or contribute to air quality problems in downwind
areas. The purpose of those requirements as they apply to CAL is to
achieve attainment of the standard in that area. The issue of
transported emissions is dealt with by other provisions of the Act,
provisions that are not the subject of this rulemaking action. USEPA
has authority, and the state has an obligation, under section
110(a)(2)(A) (in the case of intrastate areas) and section 110(a)(2)(D)
(in the case of interstate areas), to address transported emissions
from upwind areas that significantly contribute to air quality problems
in downwind areas. The determination being made in this rulemaking is
that, as CAL has attained the ozone standard, certain additional Act
requirements whose purpose is to achieve attainment in the area do not
apply to them. That determination does not mean that the area might not
have to achieve additional reductions pursuant to other provisions of
the Act if it is determined in the future that such reductions are
necessary to deal with transport from the CAL area to downwind areas.
Currently, the issue of transported ozone and ozone precursors is
being addressed by the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) which is
composed of Industry, Environmental Groups, Federal Government, State
Governments (including the State of Ohio), and Local Governments from
the Midwest and Eastern Regions. OTAG is performing ozone modeling to
determine how ozone transport can be addressed on a regional basis.
After this assessment is completed, The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) anticipates using its authority under
sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(D) of the Act to require emissions
reductions where appropriate based on this assessment and any other
relevant information.

(2) Comment: The determination of attainment fails to meet the
purpose, intent and spirit of the Clean Air Act by not protecting and
enhancing the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote
the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its
population. The ozone standard has been shown to be inadequate to
protect public health. The American Lung

[[Page 20460]]

Association has provided ample evidence and new studies continue to
confirm this. It is very clear to many people living here that the air
is polluted and adversely affecting people's health. Furthermore, no
one has demonstrated that the bad air and high pollution levels in
Ohio's nonattainment areas are not adversely affecting the health of
those downwind.

(2) Response: The determination of attainment is based on ozone
monitoring data collected in the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area. These
data continue to show that the area has attained the standard. In a
separate part of this rulemaking the ozone redesignation request is
discussed. This request contains a maintenance plan which will provide
for continued maintenance of the standard into the future. The
maintenance plan is unaffected by the determination of attainment that
finds that the 15alan, attainment demonstration, and section
172(c)(9) contingency measures are no longer required.
USEPA is also reviewing the current ozone standard to see whether
it should be revised in order to better protect the public health.
Until the current NAAQS is revised, the current NAAQS of .12 parts per
million is the appropriate standard against which to assess plans and
measure attainment.

(3) Comment: The piecemeal approach which USEPA is taking to ozone
attainment and redesignation is promoting backsliding and encouraging
doing the least possible to protect public health and actually clean up
the air. A holistic approach to solving environmental problems is
always needed. This is no exception. Reviewing emissions inventories in
one rulemaking, NO<INF>X in another, the SIP in another, Reasonable
Further Progress in another, transportation modeling in another, etc.
is a methodology which effectively puts blinders on and prevents
complete analysis of interdependence aspects. Furthermore this
piecemeal approach is an out-of-sequence, illogical process.
USEPA must first determine if attainment has been reached in
accordance with the Clean Air Act's redesignation criteria given in
section 107. Without ascertaining that attainment has actually been
reached it is premature to alleviate the requirements for further
controls or Reasonable Further Progress. It appears that USEPA is only
applying the first redesignation requirement that the area has attained
the NAAQS and ignoring the other requirements for redesignation and
proceeding to relax the standards.

(3) Response: Nothing requires that all of the SIP revisions
submitted by the State be reviewed together. The CAA has differing
submittal dates for the SIPs and requires USEPA to act on each within a
specific time period of its submittal. This would probably not allow
adequate time for USEPA to process all of the submittals at once, given
that some of the submittals were submitted years apart from each other.
Where possible USEPA has sought to consolidate responses to submittals
but the CAA is not always conducive to this approach. The determination
of attainment is not the same as a redesignation to attainment, and
therefore the requirements of section 107, which apply to
redesignations to attainment are not applicable. See also the response
to comments below. The determination of attainment is only based on the
area's ozone monitoring data. USEPA has decided to address the
determination of attainment and the State's ozone redesignation request
for Cleveland-Akron-Lorain together in this Federal Register action.
This rulemaking does not circumvent the redesignation requirements. See
the discussion in the redesignation rulemaking, below, and in USEPA's
Responses to Comments in its Determination of Attainment of Ozone
Standard for Salt Lake and Davis Counties, Utah 60 FR 36723 (July 18,
1995). USEPA in this portion of the rulemaking, its determination of
attainment, is simply making a factual determination that since CAL is
attaining the standard, certain provisions of the CAA, whose express
purpose is to achieve attainment of the standard, do not require SIP
revisions. In the redesignation portion of this rulemaking, USEPA
explains its basis for concluding that CAL has met the requirements of
section 107 for redesignation to attainment.
With respect to the determination of attainment, USEPA set forth in
the June 29, 1995 notices on CAL its basis for interpreting certain CAA
requirements as inapplicable to an area that is attaining the ozone
standard.

This interpretation is consistent with USEPA's General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(``General Preamble''), 57 FR 13,498 (April 16, 1992), which directly
addressed requirements for redesignations. Id. at 13,561-64. USEPA
interpreted the general reasonable further progress requirement and
contingency measures as not applying to redesignation requests because
an area must have attained the standard before it could be redesignated
to attainment, making reasonable further progress and contingency
measures, unnecessary.

USEPA's May 10 memorandum set forth USEPA's interpretation of the
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(b)(1)(A), with respect
to ozone nonattainment areas that have achieved the ozone NAAQS. USEPA
explained that because the purpose of those requirements has already
been fulfilled for areas that have attained the standard, the
requirements do not apply to those areas for as long as they stay in
attainment. It further explained that this interpretation is consistent
with USEPA's interpretation of the general reasonable further progress
requirements and section 172(c)(9) contingency measure requirements
with respect to redesignation requests as set forth in its General
Preamble, and with related USEPA guidance on the procedures to be used
when USEPA is processing redesignation requests.
USEPA has concluded that Congress included the 15 percent plan as a
specification of ``reasonable further progress''. Section 182(b)(1) is
entitled ``Plan provisions for reasonable further progress.'' The
heading's reference to ``reasonable further progress'' indicates
Congress' overall intent in enacting the provision. The term
``reasonable further progress'' is defined as ``such annual incremental
reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required
by this part or may reasonably be required by (USEPA) for the purpose
of ensuring attainment of the applicable (NAAQS) by the applicable
date.'' 42 U.S.C. section 7501(l). This definition applies for ``the
purposes of * * * part'' D of Title I of the CAA, which includes
section 182(b). Id. Thus, the term ``reasonable further progress''
requires only such reductions in emissions as are necessary to attain
the NAAQS by the attainment date and no more. 42 U.S.C. section
7501(l). Accordingly, USEPA has interpreted section 182(b)(1)(A)(I)
consistent with the statutory definition of ``reasonable further
progress'' and with section 182(b)(1)(A)(I)'s express purpose of
assuring progress to bring violating areas into attainment. If an area
has in fact attained the standard, the stated purpose of the RFP
requirement will have already been fulfilled and USEPA does not believe
that the area need submit revisions providing for the further emissions
reductions described in section 182(b)(1).
The legislative history expressly supports USEPA's interpretation
of section 182(b)(1)(A)(I). In describing the 15 percent plan, the
House Report stated:

[[Page 20461]]

The emissions reductions called for in this subsection * * *
provide a concrete translation of how much an area must do to
achieve ``reasonable further progress'' toward attainment of the
standards, as required in section 172 and defined in section 171.
Areas that fail, as determined by USEPA, to achieve reasonable
further progress are in violation of the Act.

H.R. Rep. no. 490, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 1 (1990) at 236. Thus,
Congress contemplated that the requirements of section 182(b)(1)(A)(I)
were simply a specification of the more general reasonable further
progress requirements of the Act, with the same goals and definition.
Moreover, USEPA's interpretation of the requirements of section
182(b)(1)(A)(I) is consistent with its interpretation of the general
reasonable further progress requirements of CAA section 172.
USEPA has also determined that section 172 (c)(9), 42 U.S.C.
section 7502(c)(9) does not require a contingency measures plan for an
area such as CAL, which has attained the standard. The contingency
measures plan is required for an area which ``fails to make reasonable
further progress, or to attain the (NAAQS) by the attainment date * *
*'' 42 U.S.C. section 7502(c)(9). If, as USEPA has determined with
respect to CAL, an area has already attained the standard, then by
definition such an area is not one to which contingency measures apply.
There simply is no failure to attain or make progress for which
additional measures need be contingent. However, as with section
182(b)(1)(A)(I), USEPA interprets section 172(c)(9)'s requirements to
be applicable to areas that lapse back into violation prior to
redesignation, and which therefore need additional progress toward
attainment. Moreover, USEPA's interpretation of 172(c)(9) is consistent
with its interpretation of these requirements in the context of
redesignation requests. 57 FR 13564. USEPA's interpretation also
vindicates the policy objective of reducing the burden on states and
sources of adopting and implementing additional control measures that
are not necessary to attain the standard.
(4) Comment: The number of ``close calls'' and the use of voluntary
measures to reduce ozone raises real questions about the overall air
quality. Modeling would answer some of these questions and give a truer
picture of what the air is really like. Some initial analysis of the
weather patterns in 1995 indicates that they may be similar to 1988, a
supposedly ``unusually hot, dry summer'' when numerous exceedances were
recorded. In fact, the weather in Ohio in 1988 or thus far in 1995 is
not all that unusual. Even higher temperature have been recorded. It
can be expected that there will be more exceedances, unless there are
reductions in ozone precursor emissions.
USEPA policy (September 4, 1992, procedures for processing requests
to redesignate areas to attainment, from John Calcagni) states that
data from the monitors be from areas of highest concentration and that
modeling may be necessary to determine the representativeness of the
monitor data.

(4) Response: While voluntary measures were used in Cleveland
during the summer of 1995 to involve the community in keeping their air
clean, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) did not claim
that this measure was responsible for the Cleveland area attaining the
NAAQS. Ohio's request claimed that the improvement in air quality was
due to permanent and enforceable measures, namely the Federal Motor
Vehicle Emissions Control Program and the Federal fuel volatility
requirements that reduced the emissions from gasoline. In addition, the
basic automobile inspection and maintenance program, required as a part
of the carbon monoxide SIP, would also have provided volatile organic
compound (VOC), and oxide of nitrogen (NOx) emissions reductions in the
area, as a side benefit. These measures resulted in the area's VOC
emissions decreasing by about 14 percent from 1990 to 1994, enabling
the area to reach attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
USEPA policy on the determination of attainment is provided in a
May 10, 1995, memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director of the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards. This memorandum sets forth USEPA's
interpretation of certain requirements of subpart 2 of part D of title
I of the Clean Air Act as they relate to ozone nonattainment areas that
are meeting the ozone NAAQS. The USEPA believes it is reasonable to
interpret provisions regarding RFP and attainment demonstrations, along
with the related requirements, so as not to require SIP submissions if
an ozone nonattainment area subject to those requirements is in fact
attaining the ozone standard (i.e., attainment of the NAAQS is
demonstrated with 3 consecutive years of complete, quality-assured air
quality monitoring data). The USEPA has previously interpreted the
general provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I (section 171 and
172) so as not to require the submissions of SIP revisions concerning
RFP, attainment demonstrations, or contingency measures, and USEPA
believes it is appropriate to interpret the ozone-specific provisions
of subpart 2 in the same manner. This is further discussed under
section I covering the background on the determination of attainment.
The determination of attainment is based only on ozone monitoring
data for the area. The data for at least the last four years show that
the area has achieved attainment. We believe that the monitoring data
is adequate and representative of the area and that modeling is not
necessary to show attainment. These data show that the area is in
attainment and the monitoring data for 1995 show that no exceedances
were monitored in the entire Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area. This shows
that the provisions related to submitting a SIP revision to bring an
area into attainment of the ozone NAAQS, such as the attainment
demonstration, RFP, and contingency measures requirements are not
necessary since the area is already in attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
The weather in 1995 was more conducive toward forming ozone in many
parts of the Country. Even though this was the case no exceedances were
monitored at any of the monitors in the CAL area showing that the area
has reduced its emissions to a level that has brought the CAL area into
attainment of the ozone NAAQS.

(5) Comment: The Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance (Growth
Alliance) is concerned that the redesignation of the Cleveland-AkronLorain
area could adversely affect both the economy and air quality in
southwestern Pennsylvania, and it feels that action on the applications
from these regions should be suspended until a more comprehensive
national solution to interstate transport of ozone and ozone precursors
is developed and implemented. The Growth Alliance believes that
Southwestern Pennsylvania is being unfairly disadvantaged compared to
neighboring states by the requirements created by the Clean Air Act, by
USEPA, and by the Northeast Ozone Transport Commission.
(5) Response: USEPA's proposed action to determine that the
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area has reached attainment and that it is not
necessary for it to have an attainment demonstration, 15rate of
reduction plan, and a contingency plan is different from redesignating
the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area as an attainment area for ozone. In
order for USEPA to make a determination concerning the 15alan and
other requirements, it is only necessary to show that the area has
attained the ozone standard through

[[Page 20462]]

monitoring data. In order to be redesignated from nonattainment to
attainment the area must meet the five redesignation requirements of
section 107 of the CAA. One of the five redesignation requirements is
that the area have met all of the SIP requirements applicable to the
area. A determination of attainment renders some of those requirements
as inapplicable, based on the area attaining the standard, but the area
would still have to meet the remaining applicable SIP requirements
before it could satisfy part of the requirements for redesignation. The
ozone redesignation request for Cleveland-Akron-Lorain is being
addressed in a separate part of this same Federal Register action. A
discussion of the comments and responses received on the redesignation
is given in that part of this action. In order for the CAL area to be
redesignated from nonattainment to attainment it would have to meet all
of the applicable redesignation requirements. If an area meets the
criteria for redesignation nothing in the CAA suggests that
redesignations should be delayed. Any issue regarding transport of
ozone and its precursors can and is expected to be dealt with through
the Ozone Transport and Assessment Group (OTAG) and USEPA's authority
under section 110 (a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(D) of the Act. See also Response
to comment 2.

Determination Conclusion

The USEPA has determined that the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain (which
includes the Counties of Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain,
Medina, Portage and Summit) has attained the ozone standard and
continues to attain the standard at this time.
As a consequence of this determination that the Cleveland-AkronLorain
ozone nonattainment area has attained the ozone standard, the
requirements of section 182(b)(1) concerning the submission of the 15
percent plan and ozone attainment demonstration and the requirements of
section 172(c)(9) concerning contingency measures are not applicable to
the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area. Additionally since this determination
is occurring simultaneously with the ozone redesignation to attainment,
the determination will not be revoked in the event of a violation.
Rather, in the event of a violation, the contingency measures in the
approved maintenance plan would be triggered by a violation.

Ozone Redesignation Request

I. Background

On November 14, 1994, the OEPA submitted to the USEPA a request for
redesignation to attainment for ozone for the CAL area of Lorain,
Cuyahoga, Lake, Ashtabula, Geauga, Medina, Summit and Portage.
Additional information on the State public hearing and response to
comments was submitted to USEPA on February 22, 1995. The redesignation
requests were supported by technical information demonstrating that the
requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA) were met. On June 15, 1995, a notice was published in the
Federal Register (60 FR 31433) which proposed approval of the
redesignation requests to attainment for ozone and the maintenance
plans for the Ohio CAL moderate ozone nonattainment area counties.

II. Summary of Proposed Rulemaking

The proposed rulemaking detailed how the State submittal fulfilled
the redesignation requirements of the CAAA. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) provides for redesignation if: (i) The Administrator
determines that the area has attained the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (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
175(A); and (v) the State containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and Part D.
Included in the State submittal was a maintenance plan. A component
of the maintenance plan is the maintenance demonstration which shows
that the level of emissions projected out 10 years will not exceed the
attainment year inventory. The proposed rulemaking presented summary
tables of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions, and NO<INF>X
emissions projections for the CAL area counties. The OEPA has revised
the base year and projected year inventories numbers in response to
comments made by Region 5. The VOC and NO<INF>X point source emissions
projections for the year 2000 were estimated by USEPA based on an
average growth rate for the 1996 to 2006 period. These estimates show
that the total emissions in the area are expected to remain below the
attainment level of emissions. In addition, the NO<INF>X point source
emission projections do not account for emission reductions due to the
Title IV Acid Rain requirements of the CAA, which would further reduce
NO<INF>X emissions in the area. The changes did not affect the State's
ability to demonstrate maintenance. The revised tables are presented
below.

Summary of VOC Emissions
[Tons/day]
1996 2000 2006
1990 base 1993 attain projected projected projected
Summary of NO<INF>X Emissions
[Tons/day]
1996 2000 2006
1990 base 1993 attain projected projected projected
Ohio--Ozone
Designation Classification
Date \1\ Type Date \1\ Type
*
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain Area....... May 7, 1996.......... Attainment...........
Ashtabula County
Cuyahoga County
Geauga County
Lake County
Lorain County
Medina County
Portage County
Summit County
*
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990 unless otherwise noted.

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

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

Local Navigation