Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8871 

definitions, and selection criteria 

proposed in this notice do not impose 

any additional burden on a small entity 

applying for a grant than the entity 

would face in the absence of the 

proposed action. That is, the length of 

the applications those entities would 

submit in the absence of the proposed 

regulatory action and the time needed to 

prepare an application would likely be 

the same. 

Further, this proposed regulatory 

action may help a small entity 

determine whether it has the interest, 

need, or capacity to implement 

activities under the program and, thus, 

prevent a small entity that does not have 

such an interest, need, or capacity from 

absorbing the burden of applying. 

This proposed regulatory action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a small entity once it receives 

a grant because it would be able to meet 

the costs of compliance using the funds 

provided under this program and with 

any matching funds provided by 

private-sector partners. 

The Secretary invites comments from 

small nonprofit organizations and small 

LEAs as to whether they believe this 

proposed regulatory action would have 

a significant economic impact on them 

and, if so, requests evidence to support 

that belief. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is subject to the 

requirements of Executive Order 12372 

and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 

One of the objectives of the Executive 

order is to foster an intergovernmental 

partnership and a strengthened 

federalism. The Executive order relies 

on processes developed by State and 

local governments for coordination and 

review of proposed Federal financial 

assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to the program contact 

person listed under For Further 

Information Contact. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You can view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at this site. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: February 22, 2010. 

Thelma Mele ́ndez de Santa Ana, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3963 Filed 2–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0928; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–0046; FRL–9116–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Ohio; Indiana; 

Redesignation of the Ohio and Indiana 

Portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

Area to Attainment for Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the requests of Ohio and Indiana to 

redesignate the Ohio and Indiana 

portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, 

OH-KY-IN 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area, ‘‘the Cincinnati-Hamilton area,’’ to 

attainment for that standard, because 

these requests meet the statutory 

requirements for redesignation under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio 

EPA) and the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management (IDEM) 

submitted these requests on December 

14, 2009, and January 21, 2010, 

respectively. (EPA will address the 

Kentucky portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area in a separate rulemaking 

action.) 

These proposed approvals involve 

several related actions. EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area has attained 

the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). The 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area includes 

Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton, 

and Warren Counties in Ohio, 

Lawrenceburg Township in Dearborn 

County, Indiana, and Boone, Campbell, 

and Kenton Counties in Kentucky. This 

determination is based on three years of 

complete, quality-assured ambient air 

quality monitoring data for the 2007– 

2009 ozone seasons that demonstrate 

that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been 

attained in the area. EPA is also 

proposing to approve, as revisions to the 

Ohio and Indiana State Implementation 

Plans (SIPs), the States’ plans for 

maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

through 2020 in the area. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 

base year emissions inventory submitted 

by IDEM on June 13, 2007, as meeting 

the base year emissions inventory 

requirement of the CAA for the Indiana 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 

base year emissions inventory submitted 

by Ohio EPA as part of its redesignation 

request as meeting the base year 

emissions inventory requirements of the 

CAA for the Ohio portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Finally, EPA 

finds adequate and is proposing to 

approve the States’ 2015 and 2020 

Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

(MVEBs) for the Ohio and Indiana 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 29, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0928 and EPA–R05–OAR– 

2010–0046, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: damico.genevieve@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2511. 

4. Mail: Genevieve Damico, Acting 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand delivery: Genevieve Damico, 

Acting Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, 

Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business 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–2009– 

0928 and EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0046. 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8872 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to section I of 

this document, ‘‘What Should I Consider 

as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?’’ 

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 hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 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. We 

recommend that you telephone 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, at (312) 886–1767 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–1767, 

dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My 

Comments for EPA? 

II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take? 

III. What Is the Background for These 

Actions? 

A. What Is the General Background 

Information? 

B. What Are the Impacts of the December 

22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, United States 

Court of Appeals Decisions Regarding 

EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation Rule? 

IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation? 

V. What Is the Effect of These Actions? 

VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the Request? 

A. Attainment Determination and 

Redesignation 

B. Adequacy of the MVEBs 

C. 2005 Base Year Emissions Inventory for 

the Ohio Portion of the CincinnatiHamilton Area 

D. 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory for 

the Indiana Portion of the CincinnatiHamilton Area 

VII. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What Action Is EPA Proposing To 

Take? 

EPA is proposing to take several 

related actions. EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

nonattainment area has attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard and that the 

Ohio and Indiana portions of this area 

have met the requirements for 

redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) 

of the CAA. EPA is thus proposing to 

approve requests from Ohio EPA and 

IDEM to change the legal designation of 

the Ohio and Indiana portions of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to approve, as revisions to the 

Ohio and Indiana SIPs, the States’ 

maintenance plans (such approval being 

one of the CAA criteria for redesignation 

to attainment status). The maintenance 

plans are designed to keep the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area in attainment 

of the ozone NAAQS through 2020. EPA 

is proposing to approve the 2005 base 

year emissions inventory for the Ohio 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, 

and the 2002 base year emissions 

inventory for Dearborn County, Indiana, 

as meeting the requirements of section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA. If EPA’s 

determination of attainment is finalized, 

under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.918, 

the requirement to submit certain 

planning SIPs related to attainment (the 

Reasonably Available Control Measure 

(RACM) requirement of section 172(c)(1) 

of the CAA, the Reasonable Further 

Progress (RFP) and attainment 

demonstration requirements of sections 

172(c)(2) and (6) of the CAA, and the 

requirement for contingency measures 

of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA) are not 

applicable to the area as long as it 

continues to attain the NAAQS and 

would cease to be applicable upon 

redesignation. In addition, as set forth in 

more detail below, in the context of 

redesignations, EPA has interpreted 

requirements related to attainment as 

not applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. Finally, EPA finds 

adequate and is proposing to approve 

the newly established 2015 and 2020 

MVEBs for the Ohio and Indiana portion 

of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. The 

adequacy comment period for the 

MVEBs began on December 10, 2009, 

with EPA’s posting of the availability of 

the submittal on EPA’s Adequacy Web 

site (at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/ 

adequacy.htm). The adequacy comment 

period for these MVEBs ended on 

January 11, 2010. EPA did not receive 

any requests for this submittal, or 

adverse comments on this submittal 

during the adequacy comment period. 

In letters dated January 14, 2010, EPA 

informed Ohio EPA and IDEM that we 

had found the 2015 and 2020 MVEBs to 

be adequate for use in transportation 

conformity analyses. Please see section 

VI. B. of this rulemaking, ‘‘Adequacy of 

the MVEBs,’’ for further explanation of 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8873 

this process. Therefore, we find 

adequate, and are proposing to approve, 

the States’ 2015 and 2020 MVEBs for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

III. What Is the Background for These 

Actions? 

A. What Is the General Background 

Information? 

Ground-level ozone is not emitted 

directly by sources. Rather, emissions of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) react in the 

presence of sunlight to form groundlevel ozone. NOX and VOCs are referred 

to as precursors of ozone. 

The CAA establishes a process for air 

quality management through the 

NAAQS. Before promulgation of the 8- 

hour standard, the ozone NAAQS was 

based on a 1-hour standard. On 

November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56693 and 

56813), the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

was designated as a moderate 

nonattainment area under the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Dearborn County, 

Indiana, was not included as part of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area, and was 

designated as attainment/unclassifiable 

under the 1-hour standard. The Ohio 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

was subsequently redesignated to 

attainment of the 1-hour standard 

effective June 14, 2005. (See 70 FR 

35946, published June 21, 2005). This 

attainment designation was thus in 

effect at the time EPA revoked the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS, on June 15, 2005. 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA 

promulgated an 8-hour ozone standard 

of 0.08 parts per million parts (ppm). On 

April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA 

published a final rule designating and 

classifying areas under the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. These designations and 

classifications became effective June 15, 

2004. EPA designated as nonattainment 

any area that was violating the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS based on the three most 

recent years of air quality data, 2001– 

2003. 

The CAA contains two sets of 

provisions, subpart 1 and subpart 2, that 

address planning and control 

requirements for nonattainment areas. 

(Both are found in Title I, part D, of the 

CAA; 42 U.S.C. 7501–7509a and 7511– 

7511f, respectively.) Subpart 1 contains 

general requirements for nonattainment 

areas for any pollutant, including ozone, 

governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 

provides more specific requirements for 

ozone nonattainment areas. 

Under EPA’s implementation rule for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, (69 FR 

23951 (April 30, 2004)), an area was 

classified under subpart 2 based on its 

8-hour ozone design value (i.e. the 

three-year average annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration), if it had a 1-hour design 

value at the time of designation at or 

above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour 

design value in Table 1 of subpart 2) (69 

FR 23954). All other areas were covered 

under subpart 1, based upon their 8- 

hour design values (69 FR 23958). The 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area was 

designated as a subpart 1, 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area by EPA on April 30, 

2004 (69 FR 23857, 23900, 23905, and 

23926), based on air quality monitoring 

data from 2001–2003 (69 FR 23860). 

40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix I provide that the 8-hour 

ozone standard is attained when the 

three-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ozone concentration is less than or 

equal to 0.08 ppm, when rounded. The 

data completeness requirement is met 

when the average percent of days with 

valid ambient monitoring data is greater 

than 90%, and no single year has less 

than 75% data completeness. See 40 

CFR part 50, Appendix I, 2.3(d). 

The Ohio EPA and IDEM submitted 

requests to redesignate the Ohio and 

Indiana portions of the CincinnatiHamilton area to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone standard on December 14, 

2009, and January 21, 2010, 

respectively. The redesignation requests 

included three years of complete, 

quality-assured data for the period of 

2007 through 2009, indicating the 8- 

hour NAAQS for ozone, as promulgated 

in 1997, had been attained for the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Under the 

CAA, nonattainment areas may be 

redesignated to attainment if sufficient 

complete, quality-assured data are 

available for the Administrator to 

determine that the area has attained the 

standard, and the area meets the other 

CAA redesignation requirements in 

section 107(d)(3)(E). 

On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), 

EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour 

ozone standard of 0.075 ppm. In May 

2008, States, environmental groups and 

industry groups filed petitions with the 

DC Circuit Court of Appeals for review 

of the 2008 ozone standards. In March 

2009, the court granted EPA’s request to 

stay the litigation so EPA could review 

the standards and determine whether 

they should be reconsidered. On 

September 16, 2009, we announced that 

we are reconsidering our 2008 decision 

setting national standards for groundlevel ozone. The designation process for 

that standard has been stayed. On 

January 6, 2010, EPA proposed to set the 

level of the primary 8-hour ozone 

standard within the range of 0.060 to 

0.070 ppm, rather than at 0.075 ppm. 

We expect by August 2010 to have 

completed our reconsideration of the 

standard and also expect that thereafter 

we will proceed with designations. The 

actions addressed in today’s proposed 

rulemaking relate only to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard. 

B. What Are the Impacts of the 

December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, 

United States Court of Appeals 

Decisions Regarding EPA’s Phase 1 

Implementation Rule? 

1. Summary of Court Decision 

On December 22, 2006, in South 

Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. 

EPA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation Rule for 

the 8-hour Ozone Standard (69 FR 

23951, April 30, 2004). 472 F.3d 882 

(D.C. Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in 

response to several petitions for 

rehearing, the DC Circuit Court clarified 

that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only 

with regard to those parts of the rule 

that had been successfully challenged. 

Id., Docket No. 04 1201. Therefore, 

several provisions of the Phase 1 Rule 

remain effective: Provisions related to 

classifications for areas currently 

classified under subpart 2 of Title I, part 

D, of the CAA as 8-hour nonattainment 

areas; the 8-hour attainment dates; and 

the timing for emissions reductions 

needed for attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The June 8, 2007, 

decision also left intact the Court’s 

rejection of EPA’s reasons for 

implementing the 8-hour standard in 

certain nonattainment areas under 

subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By 

limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand 

EPA’s revocation of the 1-hour standard 

and those anti-backsliding provisions of 

the Phase 1 Rule that had not been 

successfully challenged. The June 8, 

2007, decision reaffirmed the December 

22, 2006, decision that EPA had 

improperly failed to retain four 

measures required for 1-hour 

nonattainment areas under the antibacksliding provisions of the 

regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New 

Source Review (NSR) requirements 

based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment 

classification; (2) section 185 penalty 

fees for 1-hour severe or extreme 

nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be 

implemented pursuant to section 

172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, on the 

contingency of an area not making 

reasonable further progress toward 

attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for 

failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) 

certain transportation conformity 

requirements for certain types of Federal 

actions. The June 8, 2007, decision 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8874 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

clarified that the Court’s reference to 

conformity requirements was limited to 

requiring the continued use of 1-hour 

motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8- 

hour budgets were available for 8-hour 

conformity determinations. 

This section sets forth EPA’s views on 

the potential effect of the Court’s rulings 

on this proposed redesignation action. 

For the reasons set forth below, EPA 

does not believe that the Court’s rulings 

alter any requirements relevant to this 

redesignation action so as to preclude 

redesignation or prevent EPA from 

proposing or ultimately finalizing this 

redesignation. EPA believes that the 

Court’s December 22, 2006, and June 8, 

2007, decisions impose no impediment 

to moving forward with redesignation of 

this area to attainment, because even in 

light of the Court’s decisions, 

redesignation is appropriate under the 

relevant redesignation provisions of the 

CAA and longstanding policies 

regarding redesignation requests. 

2. Requirements Under the 8-Hour 

Standard 

With respect to the 8-hour standard, 

the Court’s ruling rejected EPA’s reasons 

for classifying areas under subpart 1 for 

the 8-hour standard, and remanded that 

matter to the Agency. In its January 16, 

2009, proposed rulemaking in response 

to the South Coast decision, EPA has 

proposed to classify CincinnatiHamilton under subpart 2 as a moderate 

area. 74 FR 2936, 2944. If EPA finalizes 

this rulemaking, the requirements under 

subpart 2 will become applicable when 

they are due, a deadline that EPA has 

proposed to be one year after the 

effective date of a final rulemaking 

classifying areas as moderate or 

marginal. 74 FR 2940–2941. Although a 

future final decision by EPA to classify 

this area under subpart 2 would trigger 

additional future requirements for the 

area, EPA believes that this does not 

mean that redesignation cannot now go 

forward. This belief is based upon: (1) 

EPA’s longstanding policy of evaluating 

requirements in accordance with the 

requirements due at the time the request 

is submitted; and, (2) consideration of 

the inequity of applying retroactively 

any requirements that might be applied 

in the future. 

First, at the time the redesignation 

request was submitted, the CincinnatiHamilton area was not classified under 

subpart 2, nor were there any subpart 2 

requirements yet due for this area. 

Under EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of 

the CAA, to qualify for redesignation, 

States requesting redesignation to 

attainment must meet only the relevant 

SIP requirements that came due prior to 

the submittal of a complete 

redesignation request. See September 4, 

1992, Calcagni memorandum 

(‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division). See also Michael Shapiro 

Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 

60 FR 12459, 12465–66 (March 7, 1995) 

(Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). 

See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 

(7th Cir. 2004), which upheld EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation. See, e.g. also 68 FR 

25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) 

(Redesignation of St. Louis). 

Moreover, it would be inequitable to 

retroactively apply any new SIP 

requirements that were not applicable at 

the time the request was submitted. The 

DC Circuit has recognized the inequity 

in such retroactive rulemaking. In Sierra 

Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 

2002), the DC Circuit upheld a District 

Court’s ruling refusing to make 

retroactive an EPA determination of 

nonattainment that was past the 

statutory due date. Such a 

determination would have resulted in 

the imposition of additional 

requirements on the area. The Court 

stated: ‘‘Although EPA failed to make 

the nonattainment determination within 

the statutory time frame, Sierra Club’s 

proposed solution only makes the 

situation worse. Retroactive relief would 

likely impose large costs on the States, 

which would face fines and suits for not 

implementing air pollution prevention 

plans in 1997, even though they were 

not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68. 

Similarly here it would be unfair to 

penalize the area by applying to it, for 

purposes of redesignation, additional 

SIP requirements under subpart 2 that 

were not in effect or yet due at the time 

it submitted its redesignation request. 

3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour 

Standard 

With respect to the 1-hour standard 

requirements, the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area was an attainment area subject to 

a CAA section 175A maintenance plan 

under the 1-hour standard. The DC 

Circuit’s decisions with respect to 1- 

hour nonattainment anti-backsliding 

requirements do not impact 

redesignation requests for these types of 

areas, except to the extent that the Court 

in its June 8, 2007, decision clarified 

that for those areas with 1-hour motor 

vehicle emissions budgets in their 

maintenance plans, anti-backsliding 

requires that those 1-hour budgets must 

be used for 8-hour conformity 

determinations until replaced by 8-hour 

budgets. To meet this requirement, 

conformity determinations in such areas 

must comply with the applicable 

requirements of EPA’s conformity 

regulations at 40 CFR part 93. 

With respect to the three other antibacksliding provisions for the 1-hour 

standard that the Court found were not 

properly retained, the CincinnatiHamilton area is an attainment area 

subject to a maintenance plan for the 1- 

hour standard, and the NSR, 

contingency measure (pursuant to 

section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)), and fee 

provision requirements no longer apply 

to an area that has been redesignated to 

attainment of the 1-hour standard. 

Thus, the decision in South Coast Air 

Quality Management Dist. would not 

preclude EPA from finalizing the 

redesignation of this area. 

IV. What Are the Criteria for 

Redesignation? 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation 

provided that: (1) The Administrator 

determines that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS; (2) the 

Administrator has fully approved the 

applicable implementation plan for the 

area under section 110(k); (3) the 

Administrator determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP 

and applicable Federal air pollutant 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable reductions; (4) the 

Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A; and, (5) the State containing such 

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area under section 110 and part 

D. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignation 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 has provided further 

guidance on processing redesignation 

requests in the following documents: 

‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design 

Value Calculations,’’ Memorandum from 

William G. Laxton, Director Technical 

Support Division, 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,’’ 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8875 

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 Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 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, to Air Division 

Directors, Regions 1–10, 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. 

V. What Is the Effect of These Actions? 

Approval of the redesignation 

requests would change the official 

designation of the Ohio and Indiana 

portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also 

incorporate into the Ohio and Indiana 

SIPs, plans for maintaining the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS through 2020. The 

maintenance plans include contingency 

measures as required under CAA 

section 175A to remedy future 

violations of the 8-hour NAAQS. They 

also establish MVEBs for the Ohio and 

Indiana portions of the CincinnatiHamilton area of 31.73 and 28.82 tons 

per day (tpd) VOC and 49.00 and 34.39 

tpd NOX for the years 2015 and 2020, 

respectively. 

VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the 

Request? 

A. Attainment Determination and 

Redesignation 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area has 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

and that the area has met all other 

applicable redesignation criteria under 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). The basis for 

EPA’s proposed approvals of the 

redesignation requests is as follows: 

1. The Area Has Attained the 8-hour 

Ozone NAAQS (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)) 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the CincinnatiHamilton area has attained the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. An area may be 

considered to be attaining the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, 

as determined in accordance with 40 

CFR 50.10 and part 50, Appendix I, 

based on three complete, consecutive 

calendar years of quality-assured air 

quality monitoring data. To attain this 

standard, the three-year average of the 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ozone concentrations measured 

at each monitor within an area over 

each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. 

Based on the rounding convention 

described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix 

I, the standard is attained if the design 

value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data 

must be collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and 

recorded in the EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS). The monitors generally 

should have remained at the same 

location for the duration of the 

monitoring period required for 

demonstrating attainment. 

Ohio and Indiana included in their 

redesignation requests ozone monitoring 

data for the 2007 to 2009 ozone seasons. 

Monitoring data for 2007 and 2008 have 

been certified by the States; 2009 data 

has not yet been certified. However, 

Ohio and Kentucky have qualityassured all of the ambient monitoring 

data in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10, 

and have recorded it in the AQS 

database. (There are no monitoring 

locations in Dearborn County, Indiana.) 

The data meet the completeness criteria 

in 40 CFR 50, Appendix I, which 

requires a minimum completeness of 75 

percent annually and 90 percent over 

each three-year period. Monitoring data 

are presented in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL 4TH HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATION AND THREE YEAR AVERAGES OF 4TH

HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS

State County Monitor 2007 4th high 

(ppm) 

2008 4th high 

(ppm) 

2009 4th high 

(ppm) 

2007–2009 

average 

(ppm) 

Ohio ........................ Butler ..................... Hamilton ...................................

39–017–0004 ...........................

0.091 0.071 0.073 0.078 

Middletown ...............................

39–017–1004 ...........................

0.091 0.079 0.076 0.082 

Clermont ............... Batavia .....................................

39–025–0022 ...........................

0.086 0.071 0.069 0.075 

Clinton ................... Wilmington ...............................

39–027–1002 ...........................

0.082 0.076 0.070 0.076 

Hamilton ................ Grooms Rd., Cincinnati ...........

39–061–0006 ...........................

0.089 0.086 0.072 0.082 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8876 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL 4TH HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATION AND THREE YEAR AVERAGES OF 4TH

HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS—Continued 

State County Monitor 2007 4th high 

(ppm) 

2008 4th high 

(ppm) 

2009 4th high 

(ppm) 

2007–2009 

average 

(ppm) 

Cleves ......................................

39–061–0010 ...........................

0.086 0.077 0.065 0.076 

250 Wm. Howard Taft, Cincinnati.

39–061–0040 ...........................

0.086 0.080 0.074 0.080 

Warren .................. Lebanon ...................................

39–165–0007 ...........................

0.088 0.082 0.077 0.082 

Kentucky ................. Boone .................... KY 338 & Lower River Road ...

21–015–0003 ...........................

0.078 0.064 0.064 0.068 

Campbell ............... Highland Heights .....................

21–037–3002 ...........................

0.086 0.075 0.068 0.076 

Kenton ................... Covington .................................

21–117–0007 ...........................

0.085 0.073 0.074 0.077 

In addition, as discussed below with 

respect to the Ohio maintenance plan, 

Ohio EPA has committed to continue to 

operate an EPA-approved monitoring 

network as necessary to demonstrate 

ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. 

Ohio EPA commits to continue 

monitoring ozone at the sites indicated 

in Table 1 and to consult with EPA prior 

to making changes to the existing 

monitoring network, should changes 

become necessary in the future. Ohio 

EPA remains obligated to continue to 

quality assure monitoring data in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and 

enter all data into AQS in accordance 

with Federal guidelines. Indiana does 

not operate any ozone monitors in 

Dearborn County, which contains 

Lawrenceburg Township, the Indiana 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. 

In summary, EPA believes that the data 

show that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D; and the Area Has a Fully 

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) 

(Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii)) 

We have determined that Ohio and 

Indiana have met all currently 

applicable SIP requirements for 

purposes of redesignation for the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area under section 

110 of the CAA (general SIP 

requirements). We are also proposing to 

determine that the Ohio and Indiana 

SIPs meet all SIP requirements currently 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

under part D of Title I of the CAA 

(requirements specific to subpart 1 

nonattainment areas), in accordance 

with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, 

with the exception of the base year 

emissions inventory, we have 

determined that the Ohio and Indiana 

SIPs are fully approved with respect to 

all applicable requirements for purposes 

of redesignation, in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As discussed 

below, in this action EPA is proposing 

to approve Ohio’s 2005 base year 

emissions inventory and Indiana’s 2002 

base year emissions inventory as 

meeting the section 172(c)(3) emissions 

inventory requirement. 

In proposing these determinations, we 

have ascertained which SIP 

requirements are applicable to the area 

for purposes of redesignation, and have 

determined that there are SIP measures 

meeting those requirements and that 

they are fully approved under section 

110(k) of the CAA. As discussed more 

fully below, for purposes of evaluating 

a redesignation request, SIPs must be 

fully approved only with respect to 

requirements that became due prior to 

the submission of the redesignation 

request. 

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. Under this interpretation, a 

State and the area it wishes to 

redesignate must meet the relevant CAA 

requirements that are 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 60 FR 12459, 

12465–12466 (March 7, 1995) 

(Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). 

Applicable requirements of the CAA 

that come due subsequent to the State’s 

submittal of a complete request remain 

applicable until a redesignation to 

attainment is approved, but are not 

required as a prerequisite to 

redesignation. See section 175A(c) of 

the CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 

537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 

25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) 

(Redesignation of St. Louis). 

Since EPA is proposing here to 

determine that the area has attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, under 40 

CFR 51.918, if that determination is 

finalized, the requirements to submit 

certain planning SIPs related to 

attainment, including attainment 

demonstration requirements (the RACM 

requirement of section 172(c)(1) of the 

CAA, the RFP and attainment 

demonstration requirements of sections 

172(c)(2) and (c)(6) of the CAA, and the 

requirement for contingency measures 

of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA) would 

not be applicable to the area as long as 

it continues to attain the NAAQS and 

would cease to apply upon 

redesignation. In addition, in the 

context of redesignations, EPA has 

interpreted requirements related to 

attainment as not applicable for 

purposes of redesignation. For example, 

in the General Preamble EPA stated that: 

[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are 

directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by 

the applicable date. These requirements no 

longer apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for redesignation. 

Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance 

plans * * * provides specific requirements 

for contingency measures that effectively 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8877 

1On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued 

a NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia 

and 22 States to reduce emissions of NOX in order 

to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone 

precursors. In compliance with EPA’s NOX SIP Call, 

both Ohio EPA and IDEM have developed rules 

governing the control of NOX emissions from 

Electric Generating Units (EGUs), major non-EGU 

industrial boilers, major cement kilns, and internal 

combustion engines. EPA approved Ohio’s rules as 

fulfilling Phase I of the NOX SIP Call on August 5, 

2003 (68 FR 46089) and June 27, 2005 (70 FR 

36845), and as meeting Phase II of the NOX SIP Call 

on February 4, 2008 (73 FR 6427). EPA approved 

Indiana’s rules as fulfilling requirements of Phase 

I of the NOX SIP Call on November 8, 2001 (66 FR 

56465) and December 11, 2003 (68 FR 69025), and 

as meeting Phase II of the NOX SIP Call on October 

1, 2007 (72 FR 55664). 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas. ‘‘General Preamble 

for the Interpretation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ (General 

Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 

1992). 

See also Calcagni memorandum at 6 

(‘‘The requirements for reasonable 

further progress and other measures 

needed for attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning for areas not attaining the 

standard’’). 

a. The Ohio and Indiana Portions of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton Area Have Met All 

Applicable Requirements for Purposes 

of Redesignation Under Section 110 and 

Part D of the CAA 

i. Section 110 General SIP Requirements 

Section 110(a) of Title I of the CAA 

contains the general requirements for a 

SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the 

implementation plan submitted by a 

State must have been adopted by the 

State after reasonable public notice and 

hearing, and that, among other things, it 

includes enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CAA; provides 

for establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems 

and procedures necessary to monitor 

ambient air quality; provides for 

implementation of a source permit 

program to regulate the modification 

and construction of any stationary 

source within the areas covered by the 

plan; includes provisions for the 

implementation of part C, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part 

D, NSR permit programs; includes 

criteria for stationary source emission 

control measures, monitoring, and 

reporting; includes provisions for air 

quality modeling; and provides for 

public and local agency participation in 

planning and emission control rule 

development. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA 

requires that SIPs contain measures to 

prevent sources in a State from 

significantly contributing to air quality 

problems in another State. To 

implement this provision, EPA has 

required certain States to establish 

programs to address transport of air 

pollutants (NOX SIP Call 1 and Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162, 

May 12, 2005)). However, the section 

110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a State are 

not linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classification. EPA believes that the 

requirements linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s 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. Thus, 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 

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 a particular area’s designation and 

classification are the relevant measures 

which we may consider in evaluating 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), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 

1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, 

final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 

1995). See also the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour 

ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 

19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone 

redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 

2001). 

We have reviewed Ohio’s SIP and 

have concluded that it meets the general 

SIP requirements under section 110 of 

the CAA to the extent they are 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA has previously 

approved provisions of the Ohio SIP 

addressing section 110 elements under 

the 1-hour ozone standard (40 CFR 

52.1870). Further, in submittals dated 

December 5, 2007 and September 19, 

2008, Ohio confirmed that the State 

continues to meet the section 110 

requirements for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. EPA has not yet taken 

rulemaking action on these submittals; 

however, such approval is not necessary 

for redesignation. 

We have also reviewed Indiana’s SIP 

and have concluded that it meets the 

general SIP requirements under section 

110 of the CAA to the extent they are 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA has previously 

approved provisions of the Indiana SIP 

addressing section 110 elements under 

the 1-hour ozone standard (40 CFR 

52.773). Further, in a submittal dated 

December 10, 2007, Indiana confirmed 

that the State continues to meet the 

section 110 requirements for the 8-hour 

ozone standard. EPA has not yet taken 

rulemaking action on this submittal; 

however, such approval is not necessary 

for redesignation. 

ii. Part D Requirements 

EPA has determined that, if EPA 

finalizes the approval of the base year 

emissions inventories discussed in 

section VI.C. and D. of this rulemaking, 

the Ohio and Indiana SIPs will meet the 

applicable SIP requirements for their 

portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

under part D of the CAA. Subpart 1 of 

part D, found in sections 172–176 of the 

CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment 

requirements applicable to all 

nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part 

D, which includes section 182 of the 

CAA, establishes additional specific 

requirements depending on the area’s 

nonattainment classification. 

Since the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

was not classified under subpart 2 of 

Part D at the time its redesignation 

request was submitted, the subpart 2 

requirements do not apply for purposes 

of evaluating the States’ redesignation 

requests. The applicable subpart 1 

requirements are contained in sections 

172(c)(1)–(9) and in section 176. 

Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements 

For purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation request, the applicable 

section 172 SIP requirements for the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area are contained 

in sections 172(c)(1)–(9). A thorough 

discussion of the requirements 

contained in section 172 can be found 

in the General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992). 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8878 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans 

for all nonattainment areas to provide 

for the implementation of all RACM as 

expeditiously as practicable and to 

provide for attainment of the national 

primary ambient air quality standards. 

The EPA interprets this requirement to 

impose a duty on all nonattainment 

areas to consider all available control 

measures and to adopt and implement 

such measures as are reasonably 

available for implementation in each 

area as components of the area’s 

attainment demonstration. On June 15, 

2007 and April 22, 2008, Ohio EPA 

submitted an attainment demonstration 

and identified the control measures 

necessary to attain the NAAQS in the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Indiana 

submitted an attainment demonstration 

for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area on 

June 13, 2007. However, because 

attainment has been reached, no 

additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment, and section 

172(c)(1) requirements are no longer 

considered to be applicable as long as 

the area continues to attain the standard 

until redesignation. 40 CFR 51.918. If 

EPA finalizes approval of the 

redesignation of the Ohio and Indiana 

portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area, EPA will take no further action on 

the attainment demonstrations 

submitted by Ohio and Indiana for the 

area. 

The RFP requirement under section 

172(c)(2) is defined as progress that 

must be made toward attainment. This 

requirement is not relevant for purposes 

of redesignation because the CincinnatiHamilton area has monitored attainment 

of the ozone NAAQS. (General 

Preamble, 57 FR 13564). See also 40 

CFR 51.918. In addition, because the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area has attained 

the ozone NAAQS and is no longer 

subject to an RFP requirement, the 

requirement to submit the section 

172(c)(9) contingency measures is not 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. Id. 

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission 

and approval of a comprehensive, 

accurate and current inventory of actual 

emissions. As part of Ohio’s 

redesignation request for the CincinnatiHamilton area, the State submitted a 

2005 base year emissions inventory. As 

discussed below in section VI.C., EPA is 

proposing to approve the 2005 base year 

inventory that Ohio submitted with the 

redesignation request as meeting the 

section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory 

requirement. As part of Indiana’s June 

13, 2007, attainment demonstration 

submittal for the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area, IDEM included a 2002 base year 

emissions inventory. As discussed 

below in section VI.D., EPA is proposing 

to approve Indiana’s 2002 base year 

inventory as meeting the section 

172(c)(3) emissions inventory 

requirement. 

Section 172(c)(4) requires the 

identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources to be 

allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) 

requires source permits for the 

construction and operation of new and 

modified major stationary sources 

anywhere in the nonattainment area. 

EPA has determined that, since PSD 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation, areas being redesignated 

need not comply with the requirement 

that a NSR program be approved prior 

to redesignation, provided that the area 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

NAAQS without part D NSR. 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 and 

Indiana have demonstrated that the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area will be able to 

maintain the standard without part D 

NSR in effect; therefore, EPA concludes 

that the States need not have fully 

approved part D NSR programs prior to 

approval of the redesignation request. 

The States’ PSD programs will become 

effective in the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area 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); and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). 

Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to 

contain control measures necessary to 

provide for attainment of the standard. 

Because attainment has been reached, 

no additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment. 

Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to 

meet the applicable provisions of 

section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we 

believe the Ohio and Indiana SIPs meet 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2) 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Subpart 1 Section 176 Conformity 

Requirements 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

States to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that Federallysupported or funded activities, 

including highway projects, conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIPs. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects developed, funded or approved 

under Title 23 of the U.S. Code and the 

Federal Transit Act (transportation 

conformity) as well as to all other 

Federally-supported or funded projects 

(general conformity). State conformity 

revisions must be consistent with 

Federal conformity regulations relating 

to consultation, enforcement, and 

enforceability, which EPA promulgated 

pursuant to CAA requirements. 

EPA believes that it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request under section 107(d) for two 

reasons. First, the requirement to submit 

SIP revisions to comply with the 

conformity provisions of the CAA 

continues to apply to areas after 

redesignation to attainment since such 

areas would be subject to a section 175A 

maintenance plan. Second, EPA’s 

Federal conformity rules require the 

performance of conformity analyses in 

the absence of Federally-approved State 

rules. Therefore, because areas are 

subject to the conformity requirements 

regardless of whether they are 

redesignated to attainment and, because 

they must implement conformity under 

Federal rules if State rules are not yet 

approved, EPA believes it is reasonable 

to view these requirements as not 

applying for purposes of evaluating a 

redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA, 

265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding 

this interpretation. See also 60 FR 

62748, 62749–62750 (Dec. 7, 1995) 

(Tampa, Florida). 

EPA approved Ohio’s general and 

transportation conformity SIPs on 

March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646), and May 

30, 2000 (65 FR 34395), respectively. 

Section 176(c) of the CAA was amended 

by provisions contained in the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEALU), which was signed 

into law on August 10, 2005 (Pub. L. 

109–59). Among the changes Congress 

made to this section of the CAA was to 

streamline the requirements for State 

conformity SIPs. Ohio is in the process 

of updating its transportation 

conformity SIP to meet these new 

requirements. EPA approved Indiana’s 

general conformity SIP on January 14, 

1998 (63 FR 2146). Indiana does not 

have a Federally-approved 

transportation conformity SIP. However, 

conformity analyses are performed 

pursuant to EPA’s Federal conformity 

rules. Ohio and Indiana have submitted 

onroad motor vehicle budgets for the 

Ohio and Indiana portion of the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8879 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area of 31.73 and 

28.82 tpd VOC and 49.00 and 34.39 tpd 

NOX for the years 2015 and 2020, 

respectively. The area must use the 

MVEBs from the maintenance plan in 

any conformity determination that is 

effective on or after the effective date of 

the maintenance plan approval. 

b. The Ohio and Indiana Portions of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton Area Have Fully 

Approved Applicable SIPs Under 

Section 110(k) of the CAA 

If EPA issues a final approval of the 

base year emissions inventories, EPA 

will have fully approved the Ohio and 

Indiana SIPs for the CincinnatiHamilton area under section 110(k) of 

the CAA for all requirements applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. EPA may 

rely on prior SIP approvals in approving 

a redesignation request (See page 3 of 

the September 4, 1992, John Calcagni 

memorandum; 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 

25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the 

passage of the CAA of 1970, Ohio and 

Indiana have adopted and submitted, 

and EPA has fully approved, provisions 

addressing various required SIP 

elements under the 1-hour ozone 

standard. In this action, EPA is 

proposing to approve Ohio’s 2005 base 

year emissions inventory and Indiana’s 

2002 base year emissions inventory for 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area as meeting 

the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of 

the CAA. No Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

SIP provisions are currently 

disapproved, conditionally approved, or 

partially approved. 

3. The Improvement in Air Quality is 

Due to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions Resulting From 

Implementation of the SIP and 

Applicable Federal Air Pollution 

Control Regulations and Other 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

(Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)) 

EPA finds that Ohio and Indiana have 

demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvement in the CincinnatiHamilton area is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

SIPs, Federal measures, and other Stateadopted measures. 

In making this demonstration, Ohio 

EPA and IDEM have calculated the 

change in emissions between 2005 and 

2008. Ohio and Indiana are using 2005 

base year emissions inventories 

developed in conjunction with the Lake 

Michigan Air Directors Consortium 

(LADCO) as the nonattainment 

inventories. The States developed an 

attainment inventory for 2008, one of 

the years the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

monitored attainment. The reduction in 

emissions and the corresponding 

improvement in air quality over this 

time period can be attributed to a 

number of regulatory control measures 

that Cincinnati-Hamilton and upwind 

areas have implemented in recent years. 

a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls 

Implemented 

The following is a discussion of 

permanent and enforceable measures 

that have been implemented in the 

areas: 

i. Stationary Source NOX Rules 

Ohio EPA and IDEM have developed 

rules governing the control of NOX

emissions from Electric Generating 

Units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial 

boilers, major cement kilns, and internal 

combustion engines. EPA approved 

Ohio’s rules as fulfilling Phase I of the 

NOX SIP Call on August 5, 2003 (68 FR 

46089), and June 27, 2005 (70 FR 

36845), and as fulfilling Phase II of the 

SIP Call on February 4, 2008 (73 FR 

6427). EPA approved Indiana’s rules as 

fulfilling requirements of Phase I of the 

NOX SIP Call on November 8, 2001 (66 

FR 56465), and December 11, 2003 (68 

FR 69025), and as meeting Phase II of 

the NOX SIP Call on October 1, 2007 (72 

FR 55664). Ohio and Indiana began 

complying with Phase I of this rule in 

2004. Compliance with Phase II of the 

SIP Call, which requires the control 

NOX emissions from large internal 

combustion engines, began in both Ohio 

and Indiana in 2007, and was projected 

to result in an 82 percent NOX reduction 

from 1995 levels. 

ii. Federal Emission Control Measures 

Reductions in VOC and NOX

emissions have occurred statewide and 

in upwind areas as a result of Federal 

emission control measures, with 

additional emission reductions expected 

to occur in the future. Federal emission 

control measures include the following. 

Tier 2 Emission Standards for 

Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards. 

These emission control requirements 

result in lower VOC and NOX emissions 

from new cars and light duty trucks, 

including sport utility vehicles. The 

Federal rules were phased in between 

2004 and 2009. The EPA has estimated 

that, by the end of the phase-in period, 

the following vehicle NOX emission 

reductions will occur nationwide: 

Passenger cars (light duty vehicles) (77 

percent); light duty trucks, minivans, 

and sports utility vehicles (86 percent); 

and, larger sports utility vehicles, vans, 

and heavier trucks (69 to 95 percent). 

VOC emission reductions are expected 

to range from 12 to 18 percent, 

depending on vehicle class, over the 

same period. Some of these emission 

reductions occurred by the attainment 

years (2007–2009) and additional 

emission reductions will occur during 

the maintenance period. 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. EPA 

issued this rule in July 2000. This rule 

includes standards limiting the sulfur 

content of diesel fuel, which went into 

effect in 2004. A second phase took 

effect in 2007 which further reduced the 

highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15 

parts per million, leading to additional 

reductions in combustion NOX and VOC 

emissions. This rule is expected to 

achieve a 95 percent reduction in NOX

emissions from diesel trucks and busses. 

Non-Road Diesel Rule. EPA issued 

this rule in 2004. This rule applies to 

diesel engines used in industries, such 

as construction, agriculture, and mining. 

It is estimated that compliance with this 

rule will cut NOX emissions from nonroad diesel engines by up to 90 percent. 

This rule is currently achieving 

emission reductions, but will not be 

fully implemented until 2010. 

iii. Control Measures in Upwind Areas 

On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), 

EPA issued a NOX SIP Call requiring the 

District of Columbia and 22 States to 

reduce emissions of NOX. Affected 

States were required to comply with 

Phase I of the SIP Call beginning in 

2004, and Phase II beginning in 2007. 

The reduction in NOX emissions has 

resulted in lower concentrations of 

transported ozone entering the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Emission 

reductions resulting from regulations 

developed in response to the NOX SIP 

Call are permanent and enforceable. 

b. Emission Reductions 

Ohio and Indiana are using 2005 base 

year emissions inventories developed in 

conjunction with the LADCO as the 

nonattainment inventories. The main 

purpose of LADCO is to provide 

technical assessments for and assistance 

to its member States on problems of air 

quality. LADCO’s primary geographic 

focus is the area encompassed by its 

member States (Illinois, Indiana, 

Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin) and any 

areas which affect air quality in its 

member States. In developing the 2005 

nonattainment year inventory, Ohio 

EPA and IDEM provided point and area 

source inventories to LADCO. LADCO 

processed these inventories through the 

Emission Modeling System (EMS) to 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8880 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

generate summer weekday emissions for 

VOC and NOX. The point source data 

provided to LADCO is a combination of 

EPA’s EGU inventory and source 

specific data reported to Ohio EPA and 

IDEM for non-EGU sources. Area source 

emissions were estimated by Ohio EPA 

and IDEM using published Emission 

Inventory Improvement Program 

methodologies or methodologies shared 

by other States. The methodology used 

for each area source category was 

documented. Nonroad mobile emissions 

were generated for LADCO using EPA’s 

National Mobile Inventory Model 

(NMIM), with the following exceptions: 

Recreational motorboat populations and 

spatial surrogates were updated; 

emissions estimates were developed for 

commercial marine vessels, aircraft, and 

railroads, three nonroad categories not 

included in NMIM. The States and 

LADCO also developed emissions 

inventories for 2009 and 2018 using 

similar methodologies. Onroad mobile 

emissions were prepared by the Ohio, 

Kentucky and Indiana Council of 

Governments (OKI) using the 

MOBILE6.2 emissions model. Ohio has 

submitted this 2005 emissions inventory 

to meet the requirement for a base year 

emissions inventory pursuant to section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA. 

Ohio and Indiana are using 2008 for 

the attainment year inventory. Ohio 

EPA used growth factors provided by 

LADCO to project the area and nonroad 

source sectors of the 2005 base year 

inventory to 2008. IDEM used the 2005 

nonattainment inventory and the 2009 

emissions inventory prepared in 

conjunction with LADCO to extrapolate 

2008 emissions for the area and nonroad 

mobile source sectors. Point source 

emissions for 2008 were compiled from 

Ohio EPA’s 2008 annual emissions 

inventory database, IDEM’s 2008 annual 

emissions statement database, and 

EPA’s Clean Air Markets database. 

Onroad mobile emissions were 

calculated for 2008 by OKI using the 

MOBILE6.2 emissions model. 

Using the inventories described 

above, as well as emissions inventories 

provided by Kentucky, Ohio and 

Indiana have documented changes in 

VOC and NOX emissions from 2005 to 

2008 for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. 

Emissions data are shown in Tables 2 

through 5 below. 

TABLE 2—CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT YEAR 2005 (TPD) 

County 

VOC NOX

Point Area Onroad Nonroad Total Point Area Onroad Nonroad Total 

Butler ............................................ 3.67 11.96 9.94 6.88 32.45 15.91 2.15 18.88 10.25 47.19 

Clermont ....................................... 0.73 6.98 6.86 4.33 18.90 43.11 1.65 13.04 5.03 62.83 

Clinton .......................................... 0.00 3.24 3.02 1.77 8.03 0.00 0.42 5.07 2.26 7.75 

Hamilton ....................................... 2.94 33.04 29.47 17.45 82.90 21.95 5.19 56.51 20.57 104.22 

Warren .......................................... 0.53 8.40 7.97 4.79 21.69 2.68 1.15 15.15 6.10 25.08 

Dearborn, IN ................................. 3.24 2.07 1.00 0.82 7.13 30.40 0.26 1.44 1.26 33.36 

Boone, KY .................................... 2.57 8.13 4.33 1.71 16.74 23.94 4.99 10.27 12.96 52.16 

Campbell, KY ............................... 0.25 4.77 2.52 1.76 9.30 0.00 1.41 5.98 6.33 13.72 

Kenton, KY ................................... 1.20 8.53 4.32 2.33 16.38 0.04 4.17 10.39 8.43 23.03 

OH-IN Total .................................. 11.11 65.69 58.26 36.04 171.10 114.05 10.82 110.09 45.47 280.43 

Area Total ............................. 15.13 87.12 69.43 41.84 213.52 138.03 21.39 136.73 73.19 369.34 

TABLE 3—CINCINNATI-HAMILTON VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR ATTAINMENT YEAR 2008 (TPD) 

County 

VOC NOX

Point Area Onroad Nonroad Total Point Area Onroad Nonroad Total 

Butler ............................................ 2.80 10.31 7.87 5.68 26.66 13.40 2.18 16.05 8.89 40.52 

Clermont ....................................... 0.36 6.05 5.42 3.68 15.51 22.79 1.67 11.05 4.22 39.73 

Clinton .......................................... 0.00 2.85 2.33 1.65 6.83 0.00 0.43 3.87 2.01 6.31 

Hamilton ....................................... 3.09 28.80 22.70 14.66 69.25 19.09 5.27 46.80 17.21 88.37 

Warren .......................................... 0.82 7.30 6.26 4.10 18.48 3.14 1.17 12.76 5.19 22.26 

Dearborn, IN ................................. 3.58 2.42 0.75 0.74 7.49 30.55 0.26 1.14 1.14 33.09 

Boone, KY .................................... 2.81 8.41 4.00 5.07 20.29 23.27 5.02 8.53 11.02 47.84 

Campbell, KY ............................... 0.28 4.34 2.29 1.51 8.42 0.02 1.32 4.88 5.34 11.56 

Kenton, KY ................................... 1.17 7.88 3.85 1.95 14.85 0.03 4.06 8.37 7.33 19.79 

OH-IN Total .................................. 10.65 57.73 45.33 30.51 144.22 88.97 10.98 91.67 38.66 230.28 

Area Total ............................. 14.91 78.36 55.47 39.04 187.78 112.29 21.38 113.45 62.35 309.47 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF 2005 AND 2008 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE OHIO AND INDIANA PORTION OF THE

CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA (TPD) 

VOC NOX

2005 2008 Net change 

(2005–2008) 2005 2008 Net change (2005–2008) 

Point ......................................................... 11.11 10.65 ¥0.46 114.05 88.97 ¥25.08 

Area .......................................................... 65.69 57.73 ¥7.96 10.82 10.98 0.16 

Onroad ..................................................... 58.26 45.33 ¥12.93 110.09 91.67 ¥18.42 

Nonroad ................................................... 36.04 30.51 ¥5.53 45.47 38.66 ¥6.81 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8881 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF 2005 AND 2008 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE OHIO AND INDIANA PORTION OF THE

CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA (TPD)—Continued 

VOC NOX

2005 2008 Net change 

(2005–2008) 2005 2008 Net change (2005–2008) 

Total .................................................. 171.10 144.22 ¥26.88 280.43 230.28 ¥50.15 

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF 2005 AND 2008 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE ENTIRE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA

(TPD) 

VOC NOX

2005 2008 Net change 

(2005–2008) 2005 2008 Net change (2005–2008) 

Point ......................................................... 15.13 14.91 ¥0.22 138.03 112.29 ¥25.74 

Area .......................................................... 87.12 78.36 ¥8.76 21.39 21.38 ¥0.01 

Onroad ..................................................... 69.43 55.47 ¥13.96 136.73 113.45 ¥23.28 

Nonroad ................................................... 41.84 39.04 ¥2.80 73.19 62.35 ¥10.84 

Total .................................................. 213.52 187.78 ¥25.74 369.34 309.47 ¥59.87 

Table 4 shows that the Ohio and 

Indiana portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area reduced VOC emissions 

by 26.88 tpd and NOX emissions by 

50.15 tpd between 2005 and 2008. As 

shown in Table 5, the entire CincinnatiHamilton area reduced VOC emissions 

by 25.74 tpd and NOX emissions by 

59.87 tpd between 2005 and 2008. 

Based on the information summarized 

above, Ohio and Indiana have 

adequately demonstrated that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions. 

4. The Area has a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175A of the CAA (Section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iv)) 

In conjunction with their requests to 

redesignate the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

nonattainment area to attainment status, 

Ohio and Indiana submitted SIP 

revisions to provide for the maintenance 

of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the area 

through 2020. 

a. Maintenance Plan Requirements 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the required elements of a maintenance 

plan for areas seeking redesignation 

from nonattainment to attainment. 

Under section 175A, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least ten 

years after the Administrator approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after the redesignation, the State must 

submit a revised maintenance plan 

which demonstrates that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for ten years 

following the initial ten-year 

maintenance period. To address the 

possibility of future NAAQS violations, 

the maintenance plan must contain 

contingency measures with a schedule 

for implementation as EPA deems 

necessary to assure prompt correction of 

any future 8-hour ozone violations. 

The September 4, 1992, John Calcagni 

memorandum provides additional 

guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan. The memorandum 

clarifies that an ozone maintenance plan 

should address the following items: The 

attainment VOC and NOX emissions 

inventories, a maintenance 

demonstration showing maintenance for 

the ten years of the maintenance period, 

a commitment to maintain the existing 

monitoring network, factors and 

procedures to be used for verification of 

continued attainment of the NAAQS, 

and a contingency plan to prevent or 

correct future violations of the NAAQS. 

b. Attainment Inventory 

The Ohio EPA and IDEM developed 

emissions inventories for 2008, one of 

the years used to demonstrate 

monitored attainment of the 8-hour 

NAAQS, as described above. The 

attainment level of emissions is 

summarized in Table 3, above. 

c. Demonstration of Maintenance 

Along with the redesignation 

requests, Ohio EPA and IDEM submitted 

revisions to the Ohio and Indiana 8- 

hour ozone SIPs to include maintenance 

plans for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, 

in compliance with section 175A of the 

CAA. These demonstrations show 

maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

standard through 2020 by showing that 

current and future emissions of VOC 

and NOX for the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area remain at or below attainment year 

emission levels. A maintenance 

demonstration need not be based on 

modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 

426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club v. EPA, 

375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 

FR 53094, 53099–53100 (October 19, 

2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430–25432 (May 

12, 2003). 

Ohio and Indiana are using emissions 

inventory projections for the years 2015 

and 2020 to demonstrate maintenance. 

OKI calculated onroad emissions for 

2015 and 2020 using the MOBILE6.2 

emissions model. Emissions estimates 

for the remaining source categories were 

based on future year inventories 

developed by the States and LADCO for 

the years 2009 and 2018. (See section 

VI.A.3.b., above.) The 2015 interim year 

emissions were estimated based on the 

2009 and 2018 inventories, using 

growth factors provided by LADCO. The 

2020 maintenance year emissions were 

estimated by applying growth factors 

provided by LADCO to the 2018 

inventory. 

Ohio is in the process of revising its 

State rules for its Best Available 

Technology (BAT) minor source 

permitting program. As discussed 

above, a State can demonstrate 

maintenance of the standard by showing 

that future emissions of VOC and NOX

for the area remain at or below 

attainment year emission levels. Ohio 

EPA’s emissions projections for this 

maintenance plan assume no emissions 

benefits from implementation of the 

BAT program. The LADCO growth 

factors used to project future emissions 

were developed using techniques 

consistent among the LADCO States and 

assume implementation of no minor 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8882 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

source permitting programs for any 

State, including Ohio. The emission 

projections show that Ohio EPA does 

not expect emissions in the CincinnatiHamilton area to exceed the level of the 

2008 attainment year inventory during 

the maintenance period. Ohio’s 

maintenance plan demonstrates that the 

area can maintain the standard through 

2020 applying standard growth factors 

and without the BAT program. EPA 

believes that Ohio has provided 

adequate demonstration of maintenance, 

and that any changes to the BAT 

program should not impact the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area’s ability to 

attain or maintain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the issues 

associated with the BAT program are 

not being considered for purposes of 

this redesignation. Nothing in this rule 

or redesignation is intended to affect the 

SIP approvability or non-approvability 

of any revised Ohio BAT rules, and EPA 

will evaluate the approvability of such 

rules when Ohio submits them. 

Emissions data are shown in Tables 6– 

9, below. 

TABLE 6—CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR INTERIM YEAR 2015 (TPD) 

County 

VOC NOX

Point Area Onroad Nonroad Total Point Area Onroad Nonroad Total 

Butler ............................................ 4.27 9.76 4.87 4.95 23.85 14.84 2.19 7.55 5.91 30.49 

Clermont ....................................... 0.78 5.74 3.29 3.13 12.94 50.23 1.67 5.10 2.76 59.76 

Clinton .......................................... 0.00 2.72 1.47 1.26 5.45 0.00 0.43 2.02 1.39 3.84 

Hamilton ....................................... 3.28 27.38 13.44 12.70 56.80 35.71 5.30 21.11 11.18 73.30 

Warren .......................................... 0.57 6.94 4.02 3.39 14.92 2.70 1.17 6.23 3.22 13.32 

Dearborn, IN ................................. 3.95 1.79 0.50 0.62 6.86 30.42 0.27 0.60 0.78 32.07 

Boone, KY .................................... 3.04 8.50 3.17 4.55 19.26 25.08 5.03 4.63 9.77 44.51 

Campbell, KY ............................... 0.30 4.20 l.74 1.29 7.53 0.02 1.30 2.54 4.57 8.43 

Kenton, KY ................................... 1.31 7.66 2.85 1.76 13.58 0.03 4.02 4.23 6.15 14.43 

OH-IN Total .................................. 12.85 54.33 27.59 26.05 120.82 133.90 11.03 42.61 25.24 212.78 

Area Total ............................. 17.50 74.69 35.35 33.65 161.19 159.03 21.38 54.01 45.73 280.15 

TABLE 7—CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR MAINTENANCE YEAR 2020 (TPD) 

County 

VOC NOX

Point Area Onroad Nonroad Total Point Area Onroad Nonroad Total 

Butler ............................................ 4.58 9.76 4.50 4.80 23.64 14.86 2.19 5.37 4.64 27.06 

Clermont ....................................... 0.80 5.74 3.04 2.96 12.54 51.65 1.67 3.63 2.17 59.12 

Clinton .......................................... 0.00 2.72 1.22 1.08 5.02 0.00 0.43 1.41 1.13 2.97 

Hamilton ....................................... 3.43 27.38 12.00 12.19 55.00 36.69 5.30 14.44 8.73 65.16 

Warren .......................................... 0.57 6.94 3.88 3.15 14.54 2.70 1.17 4.63 2.38 10.88 

Dearborn, IN ................................. 4.15 1.79 0.42 0.60 6.96 31.22 0.27 0.42 0.65 32.56 

Boone, KY .................................... 3.20 8.50 2.96 4.36 19.02 26.47 5.03 3.45 9.48 44.43 

Campbell, KY ............................... 0.31 4.20 1.55 1.22 7.28 0.03 1.30 1.81 4.34 7.48 

Kenton, KY ................................... 1.42 7.66 2.56 1.73 13.37 0.03 4.02 3.01 5.75 12.81 

OH-IN Total .................................. 13.53 54.33 25.06 24.78 117.70 137.12 11.03 29.90 19.70 197.75 

Area Total ............................. 18.46 74.69 32.13 32.09 157.37 163.65 21.38 38.17 39.27 262.47 

TABLE 8—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015 AND 2020 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE OHIO AND INDIANA PORTION OF

THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA (TPD) 

VOC NOX

2008 2015 2020 

Net 

change 

(2008– 

2015) 

Net 

change 

(2008– 

2020) 

2008 2015 2020 

Net 

change 

(2008– 

2015) 

Net 

change 

(2008– 

2020) 

Point ............................................. 10.65 12.85 13.53 2.20 2.88 88.97 133.90 137.12 44.93 48.15 

Area .............................................. 57.73 54.33 54.33 ¥3.40 ¥3.40 10.98 11.03 11.03 0.05 0.05 

Onroad ......................................... 30.51 27.59 25.06 ¥2.92 ¥5.45 91.67 42.61 29.90 ¥49.06 ¥61.77 

Nonroad ........................................ 45.33 26.05 24.78 ¥19.28 ¥20.55 38.66 25.24 19.70 ¥13.42 ¥18.96 

Total ...................................... 144.22 120.82 117.70 ¥23.40 ¥26.52 230.28 212.78 197.75 ¥17.50 ¥32.53 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8883 

2There is more uncertainty about the use of SO2

allowances and future projections for SO2

emissions; thus, further review and discussion will 

be needed regarding the appropriateness of using 

these emission projections for future PM2.5 SIP 

approvals and redesignation requests. 

TABLE 9—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015 AND 2020 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE ENTIRE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON

AREA (TPD) 

VOC NOX

2008 2015 2020 

Net 

change 

(2008– 

2015) 

Net 

change 

(2008– 

2020) 

2008 2015 2020 

Net 

change 

(2008– 

2015) 

Net 

change 

(2008– 

2020) 

Point ............................................. 14.91 17.50 18.46 2.59 3.55 112.29 159.03 163.65 46.74 51.36 

Area .............................................. 78.36 74.69 74.69 ¥3.67 ¥3.67 21.38 21.38 21.38 0.00 0.00 

Onroad ......................................... 55.47 35.35 32.13 ¥20.12 ¥23.34 113.45 54.01 38.17 ¥59.44 ¥75.28 

Nonroad ........................................ 39.04 33.65 32.09 ¥5.39 ¥6.95 62.35 45.73 39.27 ¥16.62 ¥23.08 

Total ...................................... 187.78 161.19 157.37 ¥26.59 ¥30.41 309.47 280.15 262.47 ¥29.32 ¥47.00 

The emission projections show that 

Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky do not 

expect emissions in the CincinnatiHamilton area to exceed the level of the 

2008 attainment year inventory during 

the maintenance period, even without 

implementation of CAIR. (See also 

discussion below.) As shown in Table 8, 

VOC and NOX emissions in the Ohio 

and Indiana portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area are projected to decrease 

by 26.52 tpd and 32.53 tpd, 

respectively, between 2008 and 2020. 

As shown in Table 9, VOC and NOX

emissions in the entire CincinnatiHamilton area are projected to decrease 

by 30.41 tpd and 47.00 tpd, 

respectively, between 2008 and 2020. 

In addition, LADCO performed a 

regional modeling analysis to address 

the effect of the recent court decision 

vacating CAIR. This analysis is 

documented in LADCO’s ‘‘Regional Air 

Quality Analyses for Ozone, PM2.5, and 

Regional Haze: Final Technical Support 

Document (Supplement), September 12, 

2008.’’ LADCO produced a base year 

inventory for 2005 and future year 

inventories for 2009, 2012, and 2018. To 

estimate future EGU NOX emissions 

without implementation of CAIR, 

LADCO projected 2007 EGU NOX

emissions for all States in the modeling 

domain based on Energy Information 

Administration growth rates by State 

(North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC) region) and fuel 

type for the years 2009, 2012 and 2018. 

The assumed 2007–2018 growth rates 

were 8.8% for Illinois, Iowa, Missouri 

and Wisconsin; 13.5% for Indiana, 

Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio; and 

15.1% for Minnesota. Emissions were 

adjusted by applying legally enforceable 

controls, e.g., consent decree or rule. 

EGU NOX emissions projections for the 

States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, 

Ohio, and Wisconsin are shown below 

in Table 11. The emission projections 

used for the modeling analysis do not 

account for certain relevant factors such 

as allowance trading and potential 

changes in operation of existing control 

devices. The NOX projections indicate 

that, due to the NOX SIP Call, certain 

State rules, consent decrees resulting 

from enforcement cases, and ongoing 

implementation of a number of mobile 

source rules, EGU NOX is not expected 

to increase in Ohio, Indiana, or any of 

the States in the immediate region, and 

overall NOX emissions in Ohio, Indiana, 

and the nearby region are expected to 

decrease substantially between 2005 

and 2020.2 Total NOX emissions 

projections are shown in Table 11, 

below. 

TABLE 10—EGU NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE STATES OF ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MICHIGAN, OHIO AND WISCONSIN (TPD) FOR

2007, 2009, 2012, AND 2018 

2007 2009 2012 2018 

EGU ................................................................................................................. 1,582 1,552 1,516 1,524 

TABLE 11—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE STATES OF ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MICHIGAN, OHIO AND WISCONSIN (TPD) FOR

THE YEARS 2005, 2009, 2012, AND 2018 

2005 2009 2012 2018 

Total NOX ........................................................................................................ 8,260 6,778 6,076 4,759

Given that 2007 is one of the years 

Ohio and Indiana used to demonstrate 

monitored attainment of the 8-hour 

NAAQS, Table 10 shows that EGU NOX

emissions will remain below attainment 

levels through 2018. If the rate of 

emissions increase between 2012 and 

2018 continues through 2020, EGU NOX

emissions would still remain below 

attainment levels in 2020. Furthermore, 

as shown in Table 11, total NOX

emissions clearly continue to decrease 

substantially throughout the 

maintenance period. 

Ozone modeling performed by 

LADCO supports the conclusion that the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area will maintain 

the standard throughout the 

maintenance period. Peak modeled 

ozone levels in the area for 2009, 2012 

and 2018 are 0.082 ppm, 0.081 ppm, 

and 0.078 ppm, respectively. These 

projected ozone levels were modeled 

applying only legally enforceable 

controls; e.g., consent decrees, rules, the 

NOX SIP Call, Federal motor vehicle 

control programs, etc. Because these 

programs will remain in place, emission 

levels, and therefore ozone levels, 

would not be expected to increase 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8884 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

significantly between 2018 and 2020. 

Given that projected emissions and 

modeled ozone levels continue to 

decrease substantially through 2018, it 

is reasonable to infer that a 2020 

modeling run would also show levels 

well below the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

EPA has considered the relationship 

of the maintenance plans to the 

reductions required pursuant to CAIR. 

This rule was remanded to EPA, and the 

process of developing a replacement 

rule is ongoing. However, the remand of 

CAIR does not alter the requirements of 

the NOX SIP Call, and Ohio and Indiana 

have demonstrated maintenance 

without any additional CAIR 

requirements (beyond those required by 

the NOX SIP Call). Therefore, EPA 

believes that Ohio and Indiana’s 

demonstration of maintenance under 

sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) is valid. 

The NOX SIP Call requires States to 

make significant, specific emissions 

reductions. It also provided a 

mechanism, the NOX Budget Trading 

Program, which States could use to 

achieve those reductions. When EPA 

promulgated CAIR, it discontinued 

(starting in 2009) the NOX Budget 

Trading Program, 40 CFR 51.121(r), but 

created another mechanism, the CAIR 

ozone season trading program, which 

States could use to meet their SIP Call 

obligations (70 FR 25289–90). EPA notes 

that a number of States, when 

submitting SIP revisions to require 

sources to participate in the CAIR ozone 

season trading program, removed the 

SIP provisions that required sources to 

participate in the NOX Budget Trading 

Program. In addition, because the 

provisions of CAIR, including the ozone 

season NOX trading program, remain in 

place during the remand, EPA is not 

currently administering the NOX Budget 

Trading Program. Nonetheless, all 

States, regardless of the current status of 

their regulations that previously 

required participation in the NOX

Budget Trading Program, will remain 

subject to all of the requirements in the 

NOX SIP Call even if the existing CAIR 

ozone season trading program is 

withdrawn or altered. In addition, the 

anti-backsliding provisions of 40 CFR 

51.905(f) specifically provide that the 

provisions of the NOX SIP Call, 

including the statewide NOX emission 

budgets, continue to apply after 

revocation of the 1-hour standard. 

Indiana has submitted a SIP revision 

which would discontinue the allocation 

of NOX allowances under the NOX

Budget Trading Program beginning in 

2010. EPA has not yet acted on this SIP 

revision. Ohio currently retains the SIP 

provisions requiring sources to 

participate in the NOX Budget Trading 

Program. Ohio EPA is in the process of 

promulgating a rule change stating that 

the NOX Budget Trading Program would 

not be applicable so long as CAIR or its 

replacement remains in place. However, 

the drafted rule revision also provides 

that should CAIR requirements be 

removed and not replaced with another 

program, the NOX Budget Trading 

Program would once again apply, on 

condition that EPA maintains a NOX

Budget Trading Program. 

All NOX SIP Call States have SIPs that 

currently satisfy their obligations under 

the SIP Call, the SIP Call reduction 

requirements are being met, and EPA 

will continue to enforce the 

requirements of the NOX SIP Call even 

after any response to the CAIR remand. 

For these reasons, EPA believes that 

regardless of the status of the CAIR 

program, the NOX SIP Call requirements 

can be relied upon in demonstrating 

maintenance. Here, Ohio and Indiana 

have demonstrated maintenance based 

in part on those requirements. 

As part of their maintenance plans, 

the States elected to include a ‘‘safety 

margin’’ for the area. 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 

which continues to demonstrate 

attainment of the standard. The 

attainment level of emissions is the 

level of emissions during one of the 

years in which the area met the NAAQS. 

The Cincinnati-Hamilton area attained 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 

2007–2009 time period. Ohio and 

Indiana used 2008 as the attainment 

level of emissions for the area. For the 

Ohio and Indiana portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area, the emissions 

from point, area, nonroad, and mobile 

sources in 2008 equaled 144.22 tpd of 

VOC. In the maintenance plans, Ohio 

EPA and IDEM projected emission 

levels for 2020. Ohio EPA and IDEM 

projected VOC emissions for the year 

2020 to be 117.70 tpd of VOC. The SIP 

submissions demonstrate that the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area will continue 

to maintain the standard with emissions 

at this level. The safety margin for VOC 

is calculated to be the difference 

between these amounts or, in this case, 

26.52 tpd of VOC for 2020. By this same 

method, 32.53 tpd (i.e., 230.28 tpd less 

197.75 tpd) is the safety margin for NOX

for 2020. The safety margin, or a portion 

thereof, can be allocated to any of the 

source categories, as long as the total 

attainment level of emissions is 

maintained. 

d. Monitoring Network 

Indiana has no ozone monitor in 

Dearborn County. Ohio currently 

operates eight ozone monitors and 

Kentucky operates three monitors in the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area. In its 

redesignation request, Ohio EPA has 

committed to continue to operate the 

ozone monitors. Further, Ohio EPA 

commits to consult with EPA prior to 

making changes to the existing 

monitoring network, should changes 

become necessary in the future. Ohio 

and Kentucky remain obligated to 

continue to quality assure monitoring 

data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 

and enter all data into the Air Quality 

System in accordance with Federal 

guidelines. 

e. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Continued attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

depends, in part, on the States’ efforts 

toward tracking indicators of continued 

attainment during the maintenance 

period. Ohio’s plan for verifying 

continued attainment of the 8-hour 

standard in the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area consists of plans to continue 

ambient ozone monitoring in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 58. Ohio EPA and IDEM will 

also continue to develop and submit 

periodic emission inventories as 

required by the Federal Consolidated 

Emissions Reporting Rule (67 FR 39602, 

June 10, 2002) to track future levels of 

emissions. 

f. Contingency Plan 

The contingency plan provisions are 

designed to promptly correct or prevent 

a violation of the NAAQS that might 

occur after redesignation of an area to 

attainment. 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 occurs after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the contingency 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation of the contingency 

measures, and a time limit for action by 

the State. The State should also identify 

specific indicators to be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be adopted and 

implemented. The maintenance plan 

must include a requirement that the 

State will implement all measures with 

respect to control of the pollutant(s) that 

were contained in the SIP before 

redesignation of the area to attainment. 

See section 175A(d) of the CAA. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8885 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, Ohio and Indiana have adopted 

contingency plans for the CincinnatiHamilton area to address possible future 

ozone air quality problems. The 

contingency plans adopted by Ohio and 

Indiana have two levels of response, a 

warning level response and an action 

level response. 

In Ohio’s plan, a warning level 

response will be triggered when an 

annual fourth high monitored value of 

0.088 ppm or higher is monitored 

within the maintenance area. In 

Indiana’s plan, a warning level response 

will be triggered when an annual fourth 

high monitored value of 0.089 ppm or 

higher occurs in a single ozone season, 

or when a two-year average fourth high 

value of 0.085 ppm or greater occurs 

within the maintenance area. While the 

triggers selected by Ohio and Indiana 

differ slightly, both are acceptable. A 

warning level response will consist of 

Ohio EPA and IDEM conducting studies 

to determine whether the ozone value 

indicates a trend toward higher ozone 

values or whether emissions appear to 

be increasing. The studies will evaluate 

whether the trend, if any, is likely to 

continue and, if so, the control measures 

necessary to reverse the trend. The 

studies will consider ease and timing of 

implementation as well as economic 

and social impacts. Implementation of 

necessary controls in response to a 

warning level response trigger will take 

place within 12 months from the 

conclusion of the most recent ozone 

season. 

In the plans submitted by both Ohio 

and Indiana, a violation of the standard 

(a three-year average of the annual 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ozone concentration of 0.085 

ppm or greater) in the maintenance area 

triggers an action level response. In 

Ohio’s plan, an action level response is 

also triggered when a two-year average 

fourth high value of 0.085 ppm is 

monitored within the maintenance area. 

When an action level response is 

triggered, Ohio EPA and IDEM will 

determine what additional control 

measures are needed to assure future 

attainment of the ozone standard. 

Control measures selected will be 

adopted and implemented within 18 

months from the close of the ozone 

season that prompted the action level. 

Ohio EPA and IDEM may also consider 

if significant new regulations not 

currently included as part of the 

maintenance provisions will be 

implemented in a timely manner and 

would thus constitute an adequate 

contingency measure response. 

Ohio EPA included the following list 

of potential contingency measures in its 

maintenance plan: 

i. Implementation of an enhanced 

motor vehicle inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) program in Butler, 

Clermont, Hamilton and Warren 

Counties; 

ii. Tighten or adopt VOC Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

on existing sources covered by EPA 

Control Technique Guidelines issued 

after the 1990 CAA; 

iii. Apply VOC RACT to smaller 

existing sources; 

iv. One or more transportation control 

measures sufficient to achieve at least 

half a percent reduction in actual area 

wide VOC emissions; 

v. Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit 

programs for fleet vehicle operations; 

vi. Require VOC or NOX emission 

offsets for new and modified major 

sources; 

vii. Increase the ratio of emission 

offsets required for new sources; 

viii. Require VOC or NOX emission 

offsets for new and modified minor 

sources; and, 

ix. Adopt NOX RACT for existing 

combustion sources. 

IDEM included the following list of 

potential contingency measures in its 

maintenance plan: 

i. Installation of an I/M program; 

ii. Lower VOC formulation for asphalt 

paving; 

iii. Diesel exhaust retrofits; 

iv. Traffic flow improvements; 

v. Idle reduction programs; 

vi. Portable fuel container regulation 

statewide; 

vii. Park and ride facilities; 

viii. Rideshare/carpool program; 

ix. VOC cap and trade program for 

major stationary sources; 

x. Commercial/consumer solvent 

regulations statewide; and, 

xi. NOX RACT. 

g. Provisions for Future Updates of the 

Ozone Maintenance Plan 

As required by section 175A(b) of the 

CAA, Ohio EPA and IDEM commit to 

submit to the EPA updated ozone 

maintenance plans eight years after 

redesignation of the CincinnatiHamilton area to cover an additional 

ten-year period beyond the initial tenyear maintenance period. As required 

by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio and 

Indiana have committed to retain the 

VOC and NOX control measures 

contained in the SIP prior to 

redesignation. 

EPA has concluded that the 

maintenance plans adequately address 

the five basic components of a 

maintenance plan: attainment 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring network, verification of 

continued attainment, and a 

contingency plan. Thus EPA proposes to 

find that the maintenance plan SIP 

revisions submitted by Ohio and 

Indiana for the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area meet the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA. 

B. Adequacy of the MVEBs 

1. How Are MVEBs Developed and 

What Are the MVEBs for the CincinnatiHamilton Area? 

Under the CAA, States are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIP revisions and ozone maintenance 

plans for ozone nonattainment areas and 

for areas seeking redesignations to 

attainment of the ozone standard. These 

emission control strategy SIP revisions 

(e.g., RFP and attainment demonstration 

SIP revisions) and ozone maintenance 

plans create MVEBs based on onroad 

mobile source emissions for criteria 

pollutants and/or their precursors to 

address pollution from cars and trucks. 

The MVEBs are the portions of the total 

allowable 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. 

Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an 

area seeking a redesignation to 

attainment is established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. The 

MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions 

from an area’s planned transportation 

system. The MVEB concept is further 

explained in the preamble to the 

November 24, 1993, transportation 

conformity rule (58 FR 62188). 

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 SIP. Conformity to the SIP means 

that transportation activities will not 

cause new air quality violations, worsen 

existing air quality 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 roadways 

cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 

CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, 

criteria, and procedures for 

demonstrating and assuring conformity 

of such transportation activities to a SIP. 

When reviewing SIP revisions 

containing MVEBs, including 

attainment strategies, rate-of-progress 

plans, and maintenance plans, EPA 

must affirmatively approve or find that 

the MVEBs are ‘‘adequate’’ for use in 

determining transportation conformity. 

Once EPA affirmatively approves or 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8886 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

finds the submitted MVEBs to be 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes, the MVEBs must be used by 

State and Federal agencies in 

determining whether proposed 

transportation projects conform to the 

SIP as required by section 176(c) of the 

CAA. EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining the adequacy of MVEBs are 

set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

EPA’s process for determining 

adequacy of a MVEB consists of three 

basic steps: (1) Providing public 

notification of a SIP submission; (2) 

providing the public the opportunity to 

comment on the MVEB during a public 

comment period; and, (3) EPA’s finding 

of adequacy. The process of determining 

the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs 

is codified at 40 CFR 93.118. 

The maintenance plans submitted by 

Ohio and Indiana for the CincinnatiHamilton area contain new VOC and 

NOX MVEBs for the Ohio and Indiana 

portion of the area for the years 2015 

and 2020. The availability of the SIP 

submission with these 2015 and 2020 

MVEBs was announced for public 

comment on EPA’s Adequacy Web site 

on December 10, 2009, at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ 

transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public 

comment period on adequacy of the 

2015 and 2020 MVEBs for the Ohio and 

Indiana portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area closed on January 11, 

2010. No adverse comments on the 

submittal were received during the 

adequacy comment period. 

EPA, through this rulemaking, has 

found adequate and is proposing to 

approve the MVEBs for use to determine 

transportation conformity in the Ohio 

and Indiana portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area because EPA has 

determined that the area can maintain 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

for the relevant maintenance period 

with mobile source emissions at the 

levels of the MVEBs. Ohio EPA and 

IDEM have determined the 2015 MVEBs 

for the Ohio and Indiana portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area to be 31.73 

tpd for VOC and 49.00 tpd for NOX. 

Ohio EPA and IDEM have determined 

the 2020 MVEBs for the Ohio and 

Indiana portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area to be 28.82 tpd for VOC 

and 34.39 tpd for NOX. These MVEBs 

are consistent with the onroad mobile 

source VOC and NOX emissions 

projected by OKI for 2015 and 2020, as 

summarized in Table 8 above. Ohio and 

Indiana have demonstrated that the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area can maintain 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile 

source emissions in Ohio and Indiana 

portion of the area of 31.73 tpd and 

28.82 tpd of VOC and 49.00 tpd and 

34.39 tpd of NOX in 2015 and 2020, 

respectively, since emissions will 

remain under attainment year emission 

levels. 

2. 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. As 

noted in Table 8, the emissions in the 

Ohio and Indiana portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area are projected 

to have safety margins of 23.40 tpd for 

VOC and 17.50 tpd for NOX in 2015 (the 

difference between the attainment year, 

2008, emissions and the projected 2015 

emissions for all sources in the Ohio 

and Indiana portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area). For 2020, the emissions 

in the Ohio and Indiana portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area are projected 

to have safety margins of 26.52 tpd for 

VOC and 32.53 tpd for NOX. Even if 

emissions reached the full level of the 

safety margin, the counties would still 

demonstrate maintenance since 

emission levels would equal those in 

the attainment year. 

The MVEBs requested by Ohio EPA 

and IDEM contain safety margins for 

mobile sources smaller than the 

allowable safety margins reflected in the 

total emissions for the Ohio and Indiana 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. 

The States are not requesting allocation 

to the MVEBs of the entire available 

safety margins reflected in the 

demonstration of maintenance. 

Therefore, even though the States are 

requesting MVEBs that exceed the 

projected onroad mobile source 

emissions for 2015 and 2020 contained 

in the demonstration of maintenance, 

the increase in onroad mobile source 

emissions that can be considered for 

transportation conformity purposes is 

well within the safety margins of the 

ozone maintenance demonstration. 

Further, once allocated to mobile 

sources, these safety margins will not be 

available for use by other sources. 

C. 2005 Base Year Emissions Inventory 

for the Ohio Portion of the CincinnatiHamilton Area 

As discussed above, section 172(c)(3) 

of the CAA requires areas to submit a 

base year emissions inventory. As part 

of Ohio’s request to redesignate the 

Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area, the State submitted a 2005 base 

year emissions inventory to meet this 

requirement. Emissions contained in the 

submittal cover the general source 

categories of point sources, area sources, 

on-road mobile sources, and non-road 

mobile sources. All emission summaries 

were accompanied by source-specific 

descriptions of emission calculation 

procedures and sources of input data. 

To determine non-EGU point source 

emissions, the State relied on data 

reported in Ohio EPA’s STARShip 

emissions database. These data are 

reported by Title V facilities annually 

and include emissions, process rates, 

operating schedules, emissions control 

data, and other relevant information. 

The data entered by the sources are 

reviewed by local air agencies and Ohio 

EPA district and central office staff. 

After review, the data are processed into 

the Federally approved National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) database 

format. The files are quality assured 

again using EPA’s QA/QC software for 

format and content. The data is then 

submitted to LADCO for emissions 

processing through the Emissions 

Modeling System. Ohio used EPA’s EGU 

inventory, which is based on facility 

reported emissions as measured by 

continuous emissions monitors. 

Area source emissions were estimated 

by Ohio EPA using published Emission 

Inventory Improvement Program 

methodologies or methodologies shared 

by other States. The documentation 

supplied in the submittal shows how 

the county-specific emissions were 

calculated for each area source category. 

Non-road mobile source emissions 

were generated using the NMIM 

application. However, prior to running 

NMIM, LADCO contracted to make the 

following modifications and additions 

to the NMIM input data: emission 

factors were added for diesel tampers/ 

rammers, PM2.5 ratios were revised to 

correct an error that was introduced 

with NMIM2005 and didn’t exist in 

NMIM2004, and gasoline parameters 

(Reid Vapor Pressure, oxygenate content 

and sulfur content) were revised using 

updates provided by the States and the 

contractor. In addition, recreational 

motorboat populations and spatial 

surrogates were updated and emissions 

estimates were developed for 

commercial marine vessels, aircraft, and 

railroads, three nonroad categories not 

included in NMIM. 

Onroad mobile emissions were 

prepared by the OKI using the 

MOBILE6.2 emissions model. 

Ohio EPA’s submittal documents 

2005 emissions in the Ohio portion of 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area in units of 

tons per summer day. The 2005 summer 

day emissions of VOC and NOX are 

summarized in Table 2, above. EPA is 

proposing to approve this 2005 base 

year inventory as meeting the section 

172(c)(3) emissions inventory 

requirement. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8887 

D. 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory 

for the Indiana Portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton Area 

IDEM submitted a 2002 base year 

emissions inventory to meet the 

requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA for Dearborn County on June 13, 

2007, as part of Indiana’s attainment 

demonstration for the area. Emissions 

contained in the June 13, 2007, 

submittal cover the general source 

categories of point sources, area sources, 

on-road mobile sources, non-road 

mobile sources, and biogenic sources. 

All emission summaries were 

accompanied by source-specific 

descriptions of emission calculation 

procedures and sources of input data 

along with sample calculations for 

various counties in the State. 

To determine point source emissions, 

the State relied on data collected from 

source facilities complying with the 

State’s annual emissions reporting 

requirements, 326 IAC 2–6. Major 

sources are required to annually submit 

to the State data specifying their annual 

emissions of criteria pollutants along 

with seasonal source activity 

information to allow the calculation of 

seasonal emissions. After completing 

data quality assurance, IDEM submits 

the point source data to EPA for 

incorporation into the NEI, as required 

by the Consolidated Emissions 

Reporting Rule. The June 13, 2007, 

submittal includes VOC, NOX, and CO 

emissions for each reporting facility 

statewide. 

Area source emissions were 

calculated using a variety of information 

sources and guidance from the EPA. A 

primary source of calculation 

procedures and applied guidance was 

EPA’s Emission Inventory Improvement 

Program. Where appropriate, point 

source emissions were subtracted from 

the calculated area source emissions to 

account for source coverage overlap 

with the reported point source 

emissions and to avoid double counting 

of emissions in the emissions totals. The 

documentation supplied in the June 13, 

2007, submittal shows how the countyspecific emissions were calculated for 

each area source category. Samples of 

area source emission calculations were 

provided. 

The base year emission inventory 

documentation included a detailed 

description of the procedures and input 

data used to determine the mobile 

source for 2002. The mobile source 

emissions for Dearborn County were 

obtained from EPA’s NEI. 

Non-road mobile source VOC, NOX, 

and CO emissions for 2002 were 

generated by NMIM. To update and 

quality assure the emissions for 

locomotives, commercial and 

recreational marine sources, and offroad mobile equipment sources, LADCO 

contracted with several consultants to 

update source population and 

distribution levels. Summaries of the 

consultants’ results and recommended 

emissions changes were included in the 

June 13, 2007, submittal. 

Biogenic VOC, NOX, and CO 

emissions for 2002 were taken directly 

from the NEI. 

The June 13, 2007 submittal 

documents 2002 emissions in Dearborn 

County in units of tons per summer day. 

The 2002 summer day emissions of 

VOC, NOX, and CO for Dearborn County 

are summarized in Table 12, below. EPA 

is proposing to approve this 2002 base 

year inventory as meeting the section 

172(c)(3) emissions inventory 

requirement. 

TABLE 12—DEARBORN COUNTY 2002 BASE YEAR EMISSIONS FOR CO, VOC, AND NOX (TPD) 

Sector CO NOX VOC 

Area ............................................................................................................................................. 0.57 0.31 2.02 

Biogenic ....................................................................................................................................... 1.40 0.32 9.60 

Nonroad ....................................................................................................................................... 11.70 1.95 .96 

Onroad ......................................................................................................................................... 36.79 5.60 2.97 

Point ............................................................................................................................................. 2.27 50.63 2.77 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 52.73 58.81 18.32 

VII. What Actions Is EPA Taking? 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the CincinnatiHamilton area has attained the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the maintenance 

plan SIP revisions for the Ohio and 

Indiana portions of the CincinnatiHamilton area. EPA’s proposed approval 

of the maintenance plans is based on the 

States’ demonstrations that the plans 

meet the requirements of section 175A 

of the CAA, as described more fully 

above. After evaluating the 

redesignation requests submitted by 

Ohio and Indiana, EPA believes that the 

requests meet the redesignation criteria 

set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 

CAA. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

approve the redesignation of the Ohio 

and Indiana portions of the CincinnatiHamilton area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The final approval of these 

redesignation requests would change 

the official designation for the Ohio and 

Indiana portions of the CincinnatiHamilton area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. EPA is proposing to approve 

Ohio EPA’s 2005 base year emissions 

inventory for the Ohio portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area as meeting the 

requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA. EPA is proposing to approve 

IDEM’s 2002 base year emissions 

inventory for Dearborn County as 

meeting the requirements of section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA for the Indiana 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. 

Finally, EPA finds adequate and is 

proposing to approve the States’ 2015 

and 2020 MVEBs for Ohio and Indiana 

portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area. 

VIII. 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. Redesignation of an area to 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8888 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of 

the CAA does not impose any new 

requirements on small entities. 

Redesignation is an action that affects 

the status of a geographical area and 

does not impose any new regulatory 

requirements on sources. Accordingly, 

the Administrator certifies that this 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). Redesignation is an 

action that merely affects the status of 

a geographical area, does not impose 

any new requirements on sources, or 

allows a State to avoid adopting or 

implementing other requirements, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

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 energy 

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 (NTTA), 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 

impracticable. In reviewing program 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the CAA. Absent a prior 

existing requirement for the State to use 

voluntary consensus standards, EPA has 

no authority to disapprove a program 

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 CAA. Redesignation is 

an action that affects the status of a 

geographical area but does not impose 

any new requirements on sources. Thus, 

the requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, National parks, Wilderness 

areas. 

Dated: February 10, 2010. 

Walter W. Kovalick Jr., 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3680 Filed 2–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0044; FRL–9111–1] 

Delegation of National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Source Categories; State of 

Arizona, Maricopa County Air Quality 

Department; State of Nevada, Nevada 

Division of Environmental Protection, 

Washoe County District Health 

Department 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 112(l) of 

the 1990 Clean Air Act, EPA granted 

delegation of specific national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) to the Maricopa County Air 

Quality Department on April 28, 2009, 

to the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection on December 

1, 2008, and to the Washoe County 

District Health Department, Air Quality 

Management Division on February 26, 

2009. EPA is proposing to revise the 

Code of Federal Regulations to reflect 

the current delegation status of NESHAP 

in Arizona and Nevada. 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by March 29, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0044, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send 

e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS