Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 79593 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, National parks, Wilderness 

areas. 

Dated: December 14, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2011–32828 Filed 12–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0468; FRL–9610–4] 

Approval, and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of 

the Huntington-Ashland Area to 

Attainment of the 1997 Annual 

Standard for Fine Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On May 4, 2011, the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency 

submitted a request for EPA to approve 

the redesignation of the Ohio portion of 

the Huntington-Ashland (OH-KY-WV) 

nonattainment area to attainment of the 

1997 annual standard for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5). EPA is 

proposing to approve Ohio’s request. 

EPA is proposing to approve several 

additional related actions. EPA is 

proposing to determine that the entire 

Huntington-Ashland (OH-KY-WV) area 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard. EPA is proposing to 

approve, as revisions to the Ohio State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), the state’s 

plan for maintaining the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS through 2022 in the area. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 

emissions inventory for the Ohio 

portion of the Huntington-Ashland area 

as meeting the comprehensive 

emissions inventory requirement of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). Ohio’s 

maintenance plan submission includes 

an insignificance finding for the mobile 

source contribution of PM2.5 and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) to Ohio’s portion 

of the Huntington-Ashland PM2.5 Area 

for transportation conformity purposes. 

EPA agrees with this finding. These 

proposed actions are being taken in 

accordance with the CAA and EPA’s 

implementation regulation regarding the 

1997 p.m.2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0468, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section (AR– 

18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

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–2011– 

0468. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. 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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your email 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 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in 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 Carolyn 

Persoon, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 353–8290 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carolyn Persoon, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8290, 

persoon.carolyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplementary information section is 

arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What actions is EPA proposing to take? 

III. What is the background for these actions? 

IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to 

attainment? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s 

request? 

1. Attainment 

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D and Has a Fully Approved SIP 

Under Section 110(k) (Sections 

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

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)) 

4. Ohio Has a Fully Approved Maintenance 

Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the 

CAA (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)) 

5. Insignificance Determination for the 

Mobile Source Contribution to PM2.5 and 

NOX

6. 2005 Comprehensive Emissions 

Inventory 

7. Summary of Proposed Actions 

VI. What are the effects of EPA’s proposed 

actions? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
79594 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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—The 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 actions is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to take several 

actions related to redesignation of the 

Ohio portion of the Huntington-Ashland 

area to attainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to find 

that Ohio meets the requirements for 

redesignation of the HuntingtonAshland area to attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS under section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus 

proposing to approve Ohio’s request to 

change the legal designation of its 

portion of the Huntington-Ashland area 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This 

action would not change the legal 

designation of the Kentucky or West 

Virginia portions of the area. 

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

Ohio’s annual PM2.5 maintenance plan 

for the Huntington-Ashland area as a 

revision to the Ohio SIP, including the 

insignificance determination for PM2.5

and NOX for the mobile source 

contribution of the Ohio portion of the 

Huntington-Ashland OH-KY-WV 1997 

annual PM2.5 area. EPA’s analysis for 

this proposed action is discussed in 

Section V. of today’s proposed 

rulemaking. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to approve 

the 2005 primary PM2.5, nitrogen oxide 

and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions 

inventories as satisfying the requirement 

in section 172(c)(3) for a current, 

accurate and comprehensive emission 

inventory. Further discussion of the 

basis for these actions is provided 

below. 

III. What is the background for these 

actions? 

Fine particulate pollution can be 

emitted directly from a source (primary 

PM2.5) or formed secondarily through 

chemical reactions in the atmosphere 

involving precursor pollutants emitted 

from a variety of sources. Sulfates are a 

type of secondary particulate formed 

from SO2 emissions from power plants 

and industrial facilities. Nitrates, 

another common type of secondary 

particulate, are formed from combustion 

emissions of NOX from power plants, 

mobile sources, and other combustion 

sources. 

The first air quality standards for 

PM2.5 were promulgated on July 18, 

1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated 

an annual standard at a level of 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) of 

ambient air, based on a three-year 

average of the annual mean PM2.5

concentrations at each monitoring site. 

In the same rulemaking, EPA 

promulgated a 24-hour PM2.5 standard at 

65 mg/m3, based on a three-year average 

of the annual 98th percentile of 24-hour 

PM2.5 concentrations at each monitoring 

site. 

On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, EPA 

published air quality area designations 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 

based on air quality data for calendar 

years 2001–2003. In that rulemaking, 

EPA designated the HuntingtonAshland (OH-KY-WV) area, as 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard. 

On October 17, 2006, at 71 FR 61144, 

EPA retained the annual PM2.5 standard 

at 15 mg/m3 (2006 annual PM2.5

standard), but revised the 24-hour 

standard to 35 mg/m3, based again on the 

three-year average of the annual 98th 

percentile of the 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations. In response to legal 

challenges of the 2006 annual PM2.5

standard, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) 

remanded this standard to EPA for 

further consideration. See American 

Farm Bureau Federation and National 

Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 

559 F.3d 512 (DC Cir. 2009). However, 

given that the 1997 and 2006 annual 

PM2.5 standards are essentially 

identical, attainment of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard would also indicate 

attainment of the remanded 2006 annual 

standard. Since the Huntington-Ashland 

area is designated as nonattainment for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, today’s 

proposed action addresses redesignation 

to attainment only for this standard. 

On September 7, 2011, EPA issued a 

final determination that the entire 

Huntington-Ashland area has attained 

the 1997 PM2.5 standard. 76 FR 55542. 

IV. What are the criteria for 

redesignation to attainment? 

The CAA sets forth the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for 

redesignation provided that: (1) The 

Administrator determines that the area 

has attained the applicable NAAQS 

based on current air quality data; (2) the 

Administrator has fully approved an 

applicable state implementation plan for 

the area under section 110(k) of the 

CAA; (3) the Administrator determines 

that the improvement in air quality is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP, 

Federal air pollution control 

regulations, and other permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions; (4) the 

Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area meeting 

the requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA; and (5) the state containing the 

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area for purposes of redesignation 

under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

request? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

redesignation of the Ohio portion of the 

Huntington-Ashland area to attainment 

of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and is 

proposing to approve Ohio’s 

maintenance plan for the area and other 

related SIP revisions. The bases for 

these actions follow. 

1. Attainment 

As noted above, in a rulemaking 

published on September 7, 2011, EPA 

determined that the HuntingtonAshland area has attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The basis and 

effect of this determination were 

discussed in the notices of proposed 

and final rulemaking. The 

determination was based on qualityassured air quality monitoring data for 

2007–2009 and 2008–2010 showing the 

area has met the standard. The data 

have been certified by the respective 

states. 

Preliminary data for 2011 are 

consistent with continued attainment, 

and thus EPA proposes to determine 

that the Huntington-Ashland area 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 79595 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard. 

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D and Has a Fully Approved SIP 

Under Section 110(k) (Sections 

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

We believe that Ohio has met all 

currently applicable SIP requirements 

for purposes of redesignation for the 

Ohio portion of the Huntington-Ashland 

area under section 110 of the CAA 

(general SIP requirements). We are also 

proposing to find that the Ohio SIP 

meets all SIP requirements currently 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

under part D of title I of the CAA, in 

accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). 

In addition, with the exception of the 

emissions inventory under section 

172(c)(3), we are proposing to find that 

all applicable requirements of the Ohio 

SIP for purposes of redesignation have 

been or will be approved, in accordance 

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

discussed below, in this action EPA is 

proposing to approve Ohio’s 2005 

emissions inventories as meeting the 

section 172(c)(3) comprehensive 

emissions inventory requirement. 

In making these proposed 

determinations, we have ascertained 

which SIP requirements are applicable 

for purposes of redesignation, and 

concluded that there are SIP measures 

meeting those requirements and that 

they are or by the time of final 

designation will be fully approved 

under section 110(k) of the CAA. 

a. Ohio Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements for Purposes of 

Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of the 

Area 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, among other things, must: 

Include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CAA; provide 

for establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedures necessary to monitor 

ambient air quality; provide for 

implementation of a source permit 

program to regulate the modification 

and construction of any stationary 

source within the areas covered by the 

plan; include provisions for the 

implementation of part C, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part 

D, New Source Review (NSR) permit 

programs; include criteria for stationary 

source emission control measures, 

monitoring, and reporting; include 

provisions for air quality modeling; and 

provide 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. EPA believes 

that the requirements linked with a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation 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 that are linked with 

a particular area’s designation 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) and (62 FR 24826, 

May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, 

Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, 

May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 

1995). See also the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio 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 the Ohio 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 Ohio’s SIP 

addressing section 110 requirements 

(including provisions addressing 

particulate matter), at 40 CFR 52.1870, 

respectively). 

On December 5, 2007, and September 

4, 2009, Ohio made submittals 

addressing ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

elements required under CAA section 

110(a)(2). EPA proposed approval of the 

December 5, 2007 submittal on April 28, 

2011, at 76 FR 23757 and published 

final approval on July 14, 2011, at 76 FR 

41075. EPA disapproved the element of 

the September 4, 2009, submittal that 

addresses section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) on 

February 4, 2011 at 76 FR 92618, but 

has not taken rulemaking action on the 

remainder of the submittal. 

The requirements of section 110(a)(2), 

however, are statewide requirements 

that are not linked to the PM2.5

nonattainment status of the HuntingtonAshland area. Therefore, EPA believes 

that these SIP elements are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

review of the state’s PM2.5 redesignation 

request. 

ii. Part D Requirements 

EPA is proposing to determine that, 

upon approval of the base year 

emissions inventories discussed in 

section V.6. of this rulemaking, the Ohio 

SIP will meet the SIP requirements for 

the Ohio portion of the HuntingtonAshland 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 1 Section 172 Requirements. 

For purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation requests, the applicable 

section 172 SIP requirements for the 

Ohio portion of the Huntington-Ashland 

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). 

Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans 

for all nonattainment areas to provide 

for the implementation of all 

Reasonably Achievable Control 

Measures (RACM) as expeditiously as 

practicable and to provide for 

attainment of the primary NAAQS. 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. Because attainment has 

been reached, no additional measures 

are needed to provide for attainment, 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
79596 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 

51.1004(c).) 

The Reasonable Further Progress 

(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 

Huntington-Ashland area has monitored 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. (General Preamble, 57 FR 

13564). See also 40 CFR 51.918. In 

addition, because the HuntingtonAshland area has attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 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. Ohio submitted a 2005 base 

year emissions inventory along with 

their redesignation requests. As 

discussed below in section V.6., EPA is 

approving the 2005 base year 

inventories as meeting the section 

172(c)(3) emissions inventory 

requirement for the Ohio portion of the 

Huntington-Ashland area. 

Section 172(c)(4) requires the 

identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources 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 approved 

Ohio’s current NSR program on January 

10, 2003 (68 FR 1366). Nonetheless, 

since PSD requirements will apply after 

redesignation, the area need not have a 

fully-approved NSR program for 

purposes of redesignation, provided that 

the area demonstrates maintenance of 

the NAAQS without part D NSR. A 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ Ohio has 

demonstrated that the HuntingtonAshland area will be able to maintain 

the standard without part D NSR in 

effect; therefore, the state need not have 

a fully approved part D NSR program 

prior to approval of the redesignation 

request. The state’s PSD program will 

become effective in the HuntingtonAshland 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’s SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Subpart 1 Section 176(c)(4)(D) 

Conformity SIP Requirements. 

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). 

Section 176(c) of the CAA was 

amended by provisions contained in the 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU), which was 

signed into law on August 10, 2005 

(Public Law 109–59). Among the 

changes Congress made to this section 

of the CAA were streamlined 

requirements for state transportation 

conformity SIPs. State transportation 

conformity regulations must be 

consistent with Federal conformity 

regulations and address three specific 

requirements related to consultation, 

enforcement, and enforceability. EPA 

believes that it is reasonable to interpret 

the transportation 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 

transportation 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 transportation 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). 

Ohio has an approved transportation 

conformity SIP (72 FR 20945). Ohio is 

in the process of updating its approved 

transportation conformity SIP, and EPA 

will review its provisions when they are 

submitted. 

b. The Ohio Portion of the HuntingtonAshland Area Has a Fully Approved 

Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of 

the CAA 

Upon final approval of Ohio’s 

comprehensive 2005 emissions 

inventory, EPA will have fully approved 

the Ohio SIP for the Ohio portion of the 

Huntington-Ashland area under section 

110(k) of the CAA for all requirements 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard. EPA may rely on prior SIP 

approvals in approving a redesignation 

request (See page 3 of the September 4, 

1992, John Calcagni memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’; 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 has 

adopted and submitted, and EPA has 

fully approved, provisions addressing 

various required SIP elements under 

particulate matter standards. In this 

action, EPA is proposing to approve 

Ohio’s 2005 base year emissions 

inventory for the Huntington-Ashland 

area as meeting the requirement of 

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

1997 annual PM2.5 standard. 

c. Nonattainment Requirements 

Under section 172, states with 

nonattainment areas must submit plans 

providing for timely attainment and 

meeting a variety of other requirements. 

On July 16, 2008 Ohio submitted a statewide attainment demonstration for 

PM2.5, including the HuntingtonAshland area. However, pursuant to 40 

CFR 51.1004(c) EPA’s determination 

that the area has attained the 1997 PM2.5

annual standard suspends the 

requirement to submit certain planning 

SIPs related to attainment, including 

attainment demonstration requirements, 

the Reasonably Achievable Control 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 79597 

Technology (RACT)–RACM requirement 

of section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, the RFP 

and attainment demonstration 

requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and 

(6) and 182(b)(1) of the CAA, and the 

requirement for contingency measures 

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

As a result, the only remaining 

requirement under section 172 to be 

considered is the emissions inventory 

required under section 172(c)(3). As 

discussed in a later section, EPA is 

proposing to approve the inventory that 

Ohio submitted as part of its 

maintenance plan as satisfying this 

requirement. 

No SIP provisions applicable for 

redesignation of the Ohio portion of the 

Huntington-Ashland area are currently 

disapproved, conditionally approved, or 

partially approved. If EPA approves 

Ohio’s Huntington-Ashland area PM2.5

emissions inventories as proposed, Ohio 

will have a fully approved SIP for all 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

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 believes that Ohio has 

demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvement in the HuntingtonAshland area is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

SIP, Federal measures, and other stateadopted measures. 

In making this demonstration, Ohio 

has calculated the change in emissions 

between 2005, one of the years used to 

designate the Huntington-Ashland area 

as nonattainment, and 2008, one of the 

years the Huntington-Ashland 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 the Huntington-Ashland area and 

contributing 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 area: 

i. Federal Emission Control Measures 

Reductions in fine particle precursor 

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 NOX and SO2 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, 

new vehicles will emit the following 

percentages less NOX: Passenger cars 

(light duty vehicles)—77%; light duty 

trucks, minivans, and sports utility 

vehicles—86%; and, larger sports utility 

vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks—69 

to 95%. EPA expects fleet wide average 

emissions to come to decline by similar 

percentages as new vehicles replace 

older vehicles. The Tier 2 standards also 

reduced the sulfur content of gasoline to 

30 parts per million (ppm) beginning in 

January 2006. Most gasoline sold in 

Ohio prior to January 2006 had a sulfur 

content of about 500 ppm. 

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 reduced fine 

particle emissions from heavy-duty 

highway engines and further reduced 

the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 

15 ppm. The total program is estimated 

to achieve a 90% reduction in direct 

PM2.5 emissions and a 95% reduction in 

NOX emissions for these new engines 

using low sulfur diesel, compared to 

existing engines using higher sulfur 

content diesel. The reduction in fuel 

sulfur content also yielded an 

immediate reduction in sulfate particle 

emissions from all diesel vehicles. 

Nonroad Diesel Rule. In May 2004 

EPA promulgated a new rule for large 

nonroad diesel engines, such as those 

used construction, agriculture, and 

mining equipment, to be phased in 

between 2008 and 2014. The rule also 

reduces the sulfur content in nonroad 

diesel fuel by over 99%. Prior to 2006, 

nonroad diesel fuel averaged 

approximately 3,400 ppm sulfur. This 

rule limited nonroad diesel sulfur 

content to 500 ppm by 2006, with a 

further reduction to 15 ppm by 2010. 

The combined engine and fuel rules will 

reduce NOX and PM emissions from 

large nonroad diesel engines by over 

90%, compared to current nonroad 

engines using higher sulfur content 

diesel. It is estimated that compliance 

with this rule will cut NOX emissions 

from nonroad diesel engines by up to 

90%. This rule achieved some emission 

reductions by 2008 and was fully 

implemented by 2010. The reduction in 

fuel sulfur content also yielded an 

immediate reduction in sulfate particle 

emissions from all diesel vehicles. 

Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engine 

and Recreational Engine Standards. In 

November 2002 EPA promulgated 

emission standards for groups of 

previously unregulated nonroad 

engines. These engines include large 

spark-ignition engines such as those 

used in forklifts and airport groundservice equipment; recreational vehicles 

using spark-ignition engines such as offhighway motorcycles, all-terrain 

vehicles, and snowmobiles; and 

recreational marine diesel engines. 

Emission standards from large sparkignition engines were implemented in 

two tiers, with Tier 1 starting in 2004 

and Tier 2 in 2007. Recreational vehicle 

emission standards are being phased in 

from 2006 through 2012. Marine Diesel 

engine standards were phased in from 

2006 through 2009. With full 

implementation of the entire nonroad 

spark-ignition engine and recreational 

engine standards an 80% reduction in 

NOX expected by 2020. Some of these 

emission reductions occurred by the 

2008–2010 period used to demonstrate 

attainment, and additional emission 

reductions will occur during the 

maintenance period. 

i. Control Measures in Contributing 

Areas 

Given the significance of sulfates and 

nitrates in the Huntington-Ashland area, 

the area’s air quality is strongly affected 

by regulation of SO2 and NOX emissions 

from power plants. 

NOX SIP Call. 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. Emission reductions 

resulting from regulations developed in 

response to the NOX SIP Call are 

permanent and enforceable. 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). EPA 

proposed CAIR on January 30, 2004, at 

69 FR 4566, promulgated CAIR on May 

12, 2005, at 70 FR 25162, and 

promulgated associated Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs) on April 

28, 2006, at 71 FR 25328, in order to 

reduce SO2 and NOX emissions and 

improve air quality in many areas across 

Eastern United States. However, on July 

11, 2008, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (DC Circuit or Court) issued its 

decision to vacate and remand both 

CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs in 

their entirety (North Carolina v. EPA, 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
79598 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Periodic emission inventories are derived by 

States every three years and reported to the EPA. 

These periodic emission inventories are required by 

the Federal Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule, 

codified at 40 CFR Subpart A. EPA revised these 

and other emission reporting requirements in a final 

rule published on December 17, 2008, at 73 FR 

76539. 

531 F.3d 836 (DC Cir. 2008)). EPA 

petitioned for a rehearing, and the Court 

issued an order remanding CAIR and 

the CAIR FIPs to EPA without vacatur 

(North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 

(DC Cir. 2008)). The Court, thereby, left 

CAIR in place in order to ‘‘temporarily 

preserve the environmental values 

covered by CAIR’’ until EPA replaced it 

with a rule consistent with the Court’s 

opinion (id. at 1178). The Court directed 

EPA to ‘‘remedy CAIR’s flaws’’ 

consistent with the July 11, 2008, 

opinion, but declined to impose a 

schedule on EPA for completing this 

action (id). 

On August 8, 2011, at 76 FR 48208, 

EPA promulgated the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (also known as the 

Transport Rule) to address interstate 

transport of emissions and resulting 

secondary air pollutants and to replace 

CAIR. The CAIR, among other things, 

required NOX and SO2 emission 

reductions that contributed to the air 

quality improvement in the HuntingtonAshland nonattainment area. The CAIR 

emission reduction requirements limit 

emissions through 2011; the Transport 

Rule requires similar or greater emission 

reductions in the relevant areas in 2012 

and beyond. The Transport Rule 

requires substantial reductions of SO2

and NOX emissions from Electric 

Generating Units (EGUs or power 

plants) across most of Eastern United 

States, with implementation beginning 

on January 1, 2012. In particular, this 

rule requires reduction of these 

emissions to levels well below the levels 

that led to attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard in the 

Huntington-Ashland nonattainment 

area. Because the emission reduction 

requirements of CAIR are enforceable 

through the 2011 control period, and 

because the Transport Rule has now 

been promulgated to address the 

requirements previously addressed by 

CAIR and gets similar or greater 

reductions in the relevant areas in 2012 

and beyond, EPA has determined that 

the EGU emission reductions that 

helped lead to attainment in the 

Huntington-Ashland area can now be 

considered permanent and enforceable 

and that the requirement of CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) has now been met. 

b. Emission Reductions 

Ohio developed emissions inventories 

for NOX, direct PM2.5, and SO2 for 2005, 

one of the years used to designate the 

area as nonattainment, and 2008, one of 

the years the Huntington-Ashland area 

monitored attainment of the standard. 

EGU SO2 and NOX emissions were 

derived from EPA’s Clean Air Market’s 

acid rain database. These emissions 

reflect Ohio, Kentucky and West 

Virginia NOX emission budgets resulting 

from EPA’s NOX SIP call. The 2008 

emissions from EGUs reflect Ohio’s 

emission caps under CAIR. All other 

point source emissions were obtained 

from Ohio’s source facility emissions 

reporting. 

Area source emissions the 

Huntington-Ashland area for 2005 were 

taken from periodic emissions 

inventories.1 These 2005 area source 

emission estimates were extrapolated to 

2008. Source growth factors were 

supplied by the Lake Michigan Air 

Directors Consortium (LADCO). 

Nonroad mobile source emissions 

were extrapolated from nonroad mobile 

source emissions reported in EPA’s 

2005 National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI). Contractors were employed by 

LADCO to estimate emissions for 

commercial marine vessels and 

railroads. 

On-road mobile source emissions 

were calculated using EPA’s mobile 

source emission factor model, 

MOVES2010a, in conjunction with 

transportation model results developed 

by local Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (MPO), KYOVA. 

All emissions estimates discussed 

below were documented in the 

submittal and appendices of Ohio’s 

redesignation request submittal from 

May 4, 2011. For these data and 

additional emissions inventory data, the 

reader is referred to EPA’s digital docket 

for this rule, http:// 

www.regulations.gov, for docket 

numbers EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0468, 

which include digital copies of Ohio’s 

submittal. 

Emissions data in tons per year (tpy) 

for the entire Huntington-Ashland area 

(OH-KY-WV) are shown in Tables 1, and 

2, below. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF 2005 EMISSIONS FOR THE HUNTINGTON-ASHLAND (KY-OH-WV) AREA BY SOURCE TYPE

[tpy] 

SO2 NOX PM2.5

Point (EGU) ..................................................................................................................... 357,165.49 121,991.60 5,005.11 

Non-EGU ......................................................................................................................... 11,039.74 11,854.66 1,686.15 

On-road ............................................................................................................................ 192.92 12,813.39 500.72 

Nonroad ........................................................................................................................... 127.85 1,566.88 158.65 

Area ................................................................................................................................. 2,836.09 2,034.76 1,829.08 

MAR ................................................................................................................................. 927.29 12,221.82 404.61 

Total Huntington-Ashland ......................................................................................... 372,289.38 162,483.11 9,584.32 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF 2005 EMISSIONS FROM THE NON-ATTAINMENT YEAR AND 2008 EMISSIONS FOR AN

ATTAINMENT YEAR FOR THE HUNTINGTON-ASHLAND (KY-OH-WV) AREA

[tpy] 

2005 2008 Net change 

(2005–2008) 

PM2.5 ................................................................................................................................ 9,584.32 10,253.89 669.48 

NOX .................................................................................................................................. 162,483.11 146,972.25 ¥15,510.86 

SO2 .................................................................................................................................. 372,289.38 234,901.09 ¥137,388.63 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 79599 

Table 2 shows that the entire 

Huntington-Ashland area reduced NOX

emissions by 15,510.86 tpy, and SO2

emissions by 137,388.63 tpy between 

2005, a nonattainment year and 2008, an 

attainment year. 

Because PM2.5 concentrations in the 

Huntington-Ashland area are 

significantly impacted by the transport 

of sulfates and nitrates, the area’s air 

quality is strongly affected by regulation 

of SO2 and NOX emissions from power 

plants. Table 3, below, present’s 

statewide EGU emissions data compiled 

by EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division for 

the years 2002 and 2008 for the several 

states that were found to contribute to 

air quality in the Huntington-Ashland 

area. Emissions for 2008 reflect 

implementation of CAIR. 

Table 3 shows that states impacting 

the Huntington-Ashland area reduced 

NOX and SO2 emissions from EGUs by 

701,175 tpy and 1,409,011 tpy, 

respectively, between 2002 and 2008. 

Based on the information summarized 

above, Ohio has adequately 

demonstrated that the improvement in 

air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions. While 

these reductions were estimates of the 

impact of CAIR, these reductions are 

expected to continue and may be 

considered permanent and enforceable 

as a result of the Transport Rule being 

promulgated. 

4. Ohio Has a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175A of the CAA (Section 

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

In conjunction with Ohio’s request to 

redesignate the Ohio portion of the 

Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area 

to attainment status, Ohio has submitted 

a SIP revision to provide for 

maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS in the area through 2022. 

a. What is required in a maintenance 

plan? 

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 EPA approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after 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 annual PM2.5 violations. 

The September 4, 1992, memorandum 

from John Calcagni, entitled 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ 

provides additional guidance on the 

content of a maintenance plan. The 

memorandum states that a maintenance 

plan should address the following 

items: The attainment 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 

Ohio developed emissions inventories 

for NOX, direct PM2.5, and SO2 for 2008, 

one of the years in the period during 

which the Huntington-Ashland area 

monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard, as described 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP22DE11.079</GPH>
79600 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

previously. The attainment level of 

emissions is summarized in Tables 2 

and 3, above. 

c. Demonstration of Maintenance 

Along with the redesignation request, 

Ohio submitted a revision to its PM2.5

SIP to include a maintenance plan for 

the Huntington-Ashland area, as 

required by section 175A of the CAA. 

Ohio’s plan demonstrates maintenance 

of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 

through 2022 by showing that current 

and future emissions of NOX, directly 

emitted PM2.5 and SO2 for the 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 uses emissions inventory 

projections for the years 2015 and 2022 

to demonstrate maintenance for the 

entire Huntington-Ashland area. The 

projected emissions were estimated by 

Ohio, with assistance from LADCO and 

KYOVA using the MOVES2010a model. 

Projection modeling of inventory 

emissions was done for the 2015 interim 

year emissions using estimates based on 

the 2009 and 2018 LADCO modeling 

inventory, using LADCO’s growth 

factors, for all sectors. The 2022 

maintenance year is based on emissions 

estimates from the 2018 LADCO 

modeling. Table 4 shows the 2008 

attainment base year emission estimates 

and the 2015 and 2022 emission 

projections for the entire tri-state 

Huntington-Ashland area that Ohio 

provided in its May 4, 2011, 

submission. 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015 AND 2022 NOX, DIRECT PM2.5, AND SO2 EMISSION TOTALS (TPY) FOR THE

HUNTINGTON-ASHLAND AREA (OH-KY-WV) 

SO2 NOX PM2.5

2008 (baseline) .......................................... 234,901.09 ................................ 146,972.25 ................................ 10,253.89. 

2015 ........................................................... 149,647.27 ................................ 95,137.30 .................................. 10,100.29. 

2022 ........................................................... 113,654.75 ................................ 71,097.29 .................................. 9,928.94. 

Change ....................................................... ¥121,246.34 ............................ ¥75,874.96 .............................. ¥324.95. 

2008–2022 ................................................. 52% decrease ........................... 52% decrease ........................... 3% decrease. 

Table 4 shows that the entire 

Huntington-Ashland area reduced NOX

emissions by 75,874.96 tpy between 

2008 and the maintenance projection to 

2022, direct PM2.5 emissions by 324.95 

tpy, and reduced SO2 emissions by 

121,246.34 tpy between 2008 and 2022. 

Thus the emissions inventories set forth 

in Table 4 show that the area will 

continue to maintain the annual PM2.5

standard during the maintenance 

period. 

Maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5

air quality standard in the HuntingtonAshland area is a function of regional as 

well as local emissions trends. The 

regional impacts are dominated by the 

impacts of SO2 and NOX emissions. The 

previous section showed that the 

Transport Rule could be expected to 

provide for substantial SO2 and NOX

emission reductions through 2014 for 

Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky. 

Regionally, multiple upwind states can 

contribute precursors to PM2.5 to the 

Huntington-Ashland area; however, 

projected emissions under the Transport 

Rule for all the states contributing to 

particulate matter concentrations this 

area show emissions well below the 

attainment year of 2008 (Table 5 and 

Table 6). Table 5 and Table 6 show that 

under the Transport Rule regional 

emissions will not affect the 

maintenance of the annual PM2.5

standard. 

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF 2008 AND 2014 AND BEYOND STATEWIDE EGU SO2 EMISSIONS (TPY) FOR PROJECTED

YEARS FROM STATES THAT IMPACT THE HUNTINGTON-ASHLAND AREA

State Attainment 

year 2008 

Transport rule 

2014 and 

beyond 

Net change 

2008–2014 

Alabama ....................................................................................................................................... 357,546 173,231 ¥184,315 

Illinois ........................................................................................................................................... 257,357 128,143 ¥129,214 

Indiana ......................................................................................................................................... 565,458 128,143 ¥437,315 

Kentucky ...................................................................................................................................... 344,356 116,912 ¥227,444 

Michigan ....................................................................................................................................... 326,500 158,394 ¥168,106 

Missouri ........................................................................................................................................ 258,268 177,359 ¥80,909 

Ohio ............................................................................................................................................. 709,444 150,784 ¥558,660 

Pennsylvania ................................................................................................................................ 831,914 123,224 ¥708,690 

Tennessee ................................................................................................................................... 208,069 64,716 ¥143,353 

West Virginia ................................................................................................................................ 301,574 83,235 ¥218,339 

Wisconsin ..................................................................................................................................... 129,693 44,139 ¥85,554 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 4,290,179 1,348,280 ¥2,941,899 

TABLE 6—COMPARISON OF 2008 AND 2014 AND BEYOND NOX EMISSIONS TOTALS (TPY) FROM EGUS FOR 2008 

(ATTAINMENT) 2014 AND BEYOND FROM STATES IMPACTING THE HUNTINGTON-ASHLAND AREA

State Attainment 

year 2008 

Transport rule 

2014 and 

beyond 

Net change 

2008–2014 

Alabama ....................................................................................................................................... 112,625 68,119 ¥44,506 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 79601 

TABLE 6—COMPARISON OF 2008 AND 2014 AND BEYOND NOX EMISSIONS TOTALS (TPY) FROM EGUS FOR 2008 

(ATTAINMENT) 2014 AND BEYOND FROM STATES IMPACTING THE HUNTINGTON-ASHLAND AREA—Continued 

State Attainment 

year 2008 

Transport rule 

2014 and 

beyond 

Net change 

2008–2014 

Illinois ........................................................................................................................................... 119,929 48,533 ¥71,396 

Indiana ......................................................................................................................................... 190,092 109,392 ¥80,700 

Kentucky ...................................................................................................................................... 157,902 76,026 ¥81,876 

Michigan ....................................................................................................................................... 107,623 57,311 ¥50,312 

Missouri ........................................................................................................................................ 88,745 48,888 ¥39,857 

Ohio ............................................................................................................................................. 235,048 84,126 ¥150,922 

Pennsylvania ................................................................................................................................ 183,657 116,994 ¥66,663 

Tennessee ................................................................................................................................... 85,640 20,490 ¥65,150 

West Virginia ................................................................................................................................ 99,483 53,335 ¥46,148 

Wisconsin ..................................................................................................................................... 47,794 29,688 ¥18,106 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 1,428,538 712,902 ¥715,636 

Tables 5 and 6 show that NOX

emissions from EGUs are projected to 

decrease by 715,636 tpy from 2008 to 

2014 and beyond and SO2 emissions 

from EGUSs are projected to decrease by 

2,941,899 tpy in states impacting the 

Huntington-Ashland area. 

Based on the information summarized 

above, Ohio has adequately 

demonstrated maintenance of the PM2.5

standard in this area for a period 

extending in excess of ten years from 

expected final action on Ohio’s 

redesignation request. 

d. Monitoring Network 

Ohio’s maintenance plan includes 

additional elements. Ohio’s plan 

includes a commitment to continue to 

operate its EPA-approved monitoring 

network, as necessary to demonstrate 

ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. 

Ohio currently operates a PM2.5 monitor 

in Lawrence County to monitor the 

Huntington-Ashland area. Kentucky and 

West Virginia are also currently 

operating one monitor in each state for 

the Huntington-Ashland area. 

e. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Ohio remains obligated to continue to 

quality-assure monitoring data and enter 

all data into the Air Quality System in 

accordance with Federal guidelines. 

Ohio will use these data, supplemented 

with additional information as 

necessary, to assure that the area 

continues to attain the standard. Ohio 

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. Both of these actions will 

help to verify continued attainment in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. 

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. Ohio’s 

contingency measures include a 

Warning Level Response and an Action 

Level Response. An initial Warning 

Level Response is triggered when the 

average weighted annual mean for one 

year exceeds 15.5 mg/m3. In that case, a 

study will be conducted to determine if 

the emissions trends show increases; if 

action is necessary to reverse emissions 

increases, Ohio will follow the same 

procedures for control selection and 

implementation as for an Action Level 

Response. 

The Action Level Response will be 

prompted by any one of the following: 

A Warning Level Response study that 

shows emissions increases, a weighted 

annual mean over a two-year average 

that exceeds the standard, or a violation 

of the standard. If an Action Level 

Response is triggered, Ohio will adopt 

and implement appropriate control 

measures within 18 months from the 

end of the year in which monitored air 

quality triggering a response occurs. 

Ohio’s candidate contingency 

measures include the following: 

i. ICI Boilers—SO2 and NOX controls; 

ii. Process heaters; 

iii. EGUS; 

iv. Internal combustion engines; 

v. Combustion turbines; 

vi. Other sources > 100 TPY; 

vii. Fleet vehicles; 

viii. Concrete manufacturers; and 

ix. Aggregate processing plants 

Ohio further commits to conduct 

ongoing review of its data, and if 

monitored concentrations or emissions 

are trending upward, Ohio commits to 

take appropriate steps to avoid a 

violation if possible. Ohio commits to 

continue implementing SIP 

requirements upon and after 

redesignation. 

EPA believes that Ohio’s contingency 

measures, as well as the commitment to 

continue implementing any SIP 

requirements, satisfy the pertinent 

requirements of section 175A(d). 

As required by section 175A(b) of the 

CAA, Ohio commits to submit to the 

EPA an updated PM2.5 maintenance 

plan eight years after redesignation of 

the Huntington-Ashland area to cover 

an additional ten-year period beyond 

the initial ten-year maintenance period. 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, Ohio has also committed to retain 

the PM2.5 control measures contained in 

the SIP prior to redesignation. 

For all of the reasons set forth above, 

EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s 

1997 annual PM2.5 maintenance plan for 

the Huntington-Ashland area as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 175A. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
79602 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5. Insignificance Determination for the 

Mobile Source Contribution to PM2.5 and 

NOX

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs (TIPs) must 

conform to applicable SIP goals. This 

means that such actions will not: (1) 

Cause or contribute to violations of a 

NAAQS; (2) worsen the severity of an 

existing violation; or (3) delay timely 

attainment of a NAAQS or any interim 

milestone. Actions involving Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) or 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

funding or approval are subject to the 

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 

part 93 subpart A.) Under this rule, 

MPOs in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas coordinate with state 

air quality and transportation agencies, 

EPA, FHWA and FTA to demonstrate 

that their metropolitan transportation 

plans (‘‘plans’’) and TIPs conform to 

applicable SIPs. This is typically 

determined by showing that estimated 

emissions from existing and planned 

highway and transit systems are less 

than or equal to the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) contained 

in a SIP. 

For budgets to be approvable, they 

must meet, at a minimum, EPA’s 

adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). 

However, the conformity rule at 40 CFR 

93.109(m) allows areas to forgo 

establishment of a budget(s) where it is 

demonstrated that regional motor 

vehicle emissions for a particular 

pollutant or precursor pollutant are an 

insignificant contributor to the air 

quality problem in the area. The general 

criteria for insignificance 

determinations per 40 CFR 93.109(m) 

are based on a number of factors, 

including (1) The percentage of motor 

vehicle emissions in context of the total 

SIP inventory; (2) the current state of air 

quality as determined by monitoring 

data for that NAAQS; (3) the absence of 

SIP motor vehicle control measures; and 

(4) historical trends and future 

projections of the growth of motor 

vehicle emissions in the area. 

EPA previously reviewed the 

attainment demonstration that Ohio 

submitted for its portion of the 

Huntington-Ashland area and made an 

insignificance finding through the 

transportation conformity adequacy 

process for NOX and directly emitted 

PM2.5 for the Ohio portion of the 

Huntington-Ashland PM2.5

nonattainment area on December 7, 

2009 (74 FR 64075). That insignificance 

finding was effective on December 22, 

2009. As a result of EPA’s insignificance 

finding, the Ohio portion of the 

Huntington-Ashland PM2.5 area was no 

longer required to perform regional 

emissions analyses for either directly 

emitted PM2.5 or NOX as part of future 

PM2.5 conformity determinations for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as 

EPA reviewed and took action on the 

Huntington-Ashland PM2.5 area’s 

attainment demonstration or acted on a 

submitted maintenance plan for the 

Ohio portion of the area (the subject of 

today’s proposed action). 

As part of the On May 4, 2011, 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan Ohio EPA requested that EPA find 

that on-road emissions of direct PM2.5

and NOX emissions are insignificant for 

conformity purposes. On May 5, 2011, 

EPA initiated an adequacy review of the 

finding of insignificance that Ohio 

included in its redesignation submittal. 

As such, a notice of the submission of 

this finding was posted on its adequacy 

web page (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm). 

The public comment period closed June 

6, 2011. There were no public 

comments. EPA is acting on making 

these findings final. 

Consistent with EPA’s adequacy 

review of Ohio’s redesignation request 

and maintenance plan and the Agency’s 

thorough review of the entire SIP 

submission, EPA is proposing to 

approve Ohio’s insignificance 

determination for the on-road motor 

vehicle contribution of NOX and PM2.5

emissions to the overall PM2.5 emissions 

in the Huntington-Ashland PM2.5 area. 

Because EPA finds that Ohio’s 

submitted maintenance plan and 

redesignation request meets the criteria 

in the conformity rule for an 

insignificance finding for motor vehicle 

emissions of NOX and PM2.5 in the Ohio 

portion of the Huntington-Ashland 

PM2.5 area, it is not necessary to 

establish PM2.5 and NOX budgets for the 

Ohio portion of the Huntington-Ashland 

PM2.5 area. That is, EPA finds that the 

submittal demonstrates that, for NOX

and PM2.5, regional motor vehicle 

emissions are an insignificant 

contributor to the annual PM2.5 air 

quality problem in the Ohio portion of 

the area. This finding is based on the 

following: Ohio’s inventory shows that 

on-road emissions in the Ohio portion 

of the area are currently contribute to 

3.21% of the total NOX, and 0.97% 

PM2.5, as shown in Table 7. 

TABLE 7—HUNTINGTON-ASHLAND AREA EMISSION PROJECTIONS FOR ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCES (TPY) 

NOX PM2.5

On-road Mobile Source emissions for Ohio portion 

2015 ................................................................................................. 1,824.73 56.65 

2022 ................................................................................................. 924.15 32.23 

Total Ohio portion emissions 

2015 ................................................................................................. 56,838.94 5,837.13 

2022 ................................................................................................. 37,858.02 5,758.93 

Motor vehicle emissions in general, 

for the maintenance period of 2015 and 

2022, are low and declining in the Ohio 

portion of the area, contributing only 

2.44 and 0.56% of Ohio’s emissions for 

NOX, and PM2.5, respectively, with the 

decrease due to Federal regulations on 

motor vehicle rules such as Heavy-duty 

Highway Vehicle standards and Tier 2 

vehicle and fuel standards. Also, there 

have been no SIP requirements for 

motor vehicle control measures for the 

Ohio portion of the area and it is 

unlikely that motor vehicle control 

measures will be implemented for PM2.5

in this area in the future. 

Finally, as described above, the area 

has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS and we are proposing to 

approve the maintenance plan and 

redesignation request for the Ohio 

portion of the area. Therefore motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for PM2.5 and 

NOX are not required for the 

Huntington-Ashland area to maintain 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

proposing to approve the inventory and 

the findings of insignificant 

contribution by motor vehicles, 

resulting in no proposed motor vehicle 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 79603 

emissions budgets for the Ohio portion 

of the Huntington-Ashland area for 2015 

and 2022 projected maintenance years. 

On-road emissions were calculated 

using the EPA required MOVES2010a 

model. 

With regard to on-road emissions of 

SO2, volatile organic compounds and 

ammonia, Ohio did not provide 

emission budgets (or an insignificance 

demonstration) because it concluded, 

consistent with EPA’s presumptions 

regarding these PM2.5 precursors, that 

emissions of these precursors from 

motor vehicles are not significant 

contributors to the area’s PM2.5 air 

quality problem. 

6. 2005 Comprehensive Emissions 

Inventory 

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

of the CAA requires areas to submit a 

comprehensive emissions inventory. 

Ohio submitted a 2005 base year 

emissions inventories that meets this 

requirement. Emissions contained in the 

submittals cover the general source 

categories of point sources, area sources, 

on-road mobile sources, and nonroad 

mobile sources. 

For the point source sector, EGU SO2

and NOX emissions were derived from 

EPA’s Clean Air Market’s database. All 

other point source emissions were 

obtained from Ohio’s source facility 

emissions reporting. 

Area source emissions were 

extrapolated from Ohio’s 2005 periodic 

emissions inventories. Source growth 

factors were supplied by LADCO. 

Nonroad mobile source emissions 

were extrapolated from nonroad mobile 

source emissions reported in EPA’s 

2005 NEI. LADCO estimated emissions 

for commercial marine vessels and 

railroads. 

On-road mobile source emissions 

were calculated using EPA’s mobile 

source emission factor model, 

MOVES2010a, in conjunction with 

roadway network traffic information 

prepared by KYOVA. 

All emissions discussed in Table 1 

were documented in the submittal and 

the Appendices of Ohio’s redesignation 

request submittal. EPA has reviewed 

Ohio’s documentation of the emissions 

inventory techniques and data sources 

used for the derivation of the 2005 

emissions estimates and has found that 

Ohio has thoroughly documented the 

derivation of these emissions 

inventories. The submittal from the state 

shows that the 2005 emissions 

inventory is currently the most 

complete emissions inventories for 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the 

Huntington-Ashland area. Based upon 

EPA’s review, we propose to find that 

the 2005 emissions inventories are as 

complete and accurate as possible given 

the input data available to the Ohio, and 

we are proposing to approve them under 

CAA section 172(c)(3). 

7. Summary of Proposed Actions 

EPA has previously determined that 

the Huntington-Ashland area has 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to determine that the 

entire Huntington-Ashland area 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard and that the Ohio 

portion of the area has met the 

requirements for redesignation under 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is 

proposing to approve the request from 

Ohio to change the legal designation of 

the Ohio portion of the HuntingtonAshland area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve 

Ohio’s PM2.5 maintenance plan for the 

Huntington-Ashland area as a revision 

to the Ohio SIP because the plan meets 

the requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA. EPA is proposing to approve the 

2005 emissions inventories for primary 

PM2.5, NOX, and SO2, documented in 

Ohio’s May 4, 2011, submittal as 

satisfying the requirement in section 

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

comprehensive, current emission 

inventory. Finally, for transportation 

conformity purposes EPA is also 

proposing to approve Ohio’s 

determination that on-road emissions of 

PM2.5 and NOX are insignificant 

contributors to PM2.5 concentrations in 

the area. 

VI. What are the effects of EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

If finalized, approval of the 

redesignation request would change the 

official designation of the Ohio portion 

of the Huntington-Ashland area for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 

CFR part 81, from nonattainment to 

attainment. If finalized, EPA’s proposal 

would approve as a revision to the Ohio 

SIP for the Huntington-Ashland area, 

the maintenance plan for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard as well as the 

2005 emissions inventories included 

with the redesignation request. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews. 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, these actions: 

• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Do 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); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
79604 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, National Parks, Wilderness. 

Dated: December 14, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2011–32819 Filed 12–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 131 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0596; FRL–9611–1] 

RIN 2040–AF36 

Effective Date for the Water Quality 

Standards for the State of Florida’s 

Lakes and Flowing Waters 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to extend the 

March 6, 2012 effective date of the 

‘‘Water Quality Standards for the State 

of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters; 

Final Rule’’ (inland waters rule) for 

ninety days to June 4, 2012. EPA’s 

inland waters rule included an effective 

date of March 6, 2012 for the entire 

regulation except for the site-specific 

alternative criteria provision, which 

took effect on February 4, 2011. This 

proposal to revise the effective date for 

the inland waters rule does not affect or 

change the February 4, 2011 effective 

date for the site-specific alternative 

criteria provision. In this proposal, EPA 

is requesting comment on extending the 

effective date for the ‘‘Water Quality 

Standards for the State of Florida’s 

Lakes and Flowing Waters; Final Rule.’’ 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2009–0596, by one of the following 

methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: ow-docket@epa.gov. 

3. Mail to: Water Docket, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

Attention: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2009–0596. 

4. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0596. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009– 

0596. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. 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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your email 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 information 

about EPA’s public docket visit EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov to 

view public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the official 

public docket, and to access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. For additional 

information about EPA’s public docket, 

visit EPA Docket Center homepage at 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/ 

dockets.htm. Although listed in the 

index, some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as copyright 

material, is not placed on the Internet 

and will be publicly available only in 

hard copy form. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Docket Facility. The Office of Water 

(OW) Docket Center is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

OW Docket Center telephone number is 

(202) 566–1744 and the Docket address 

is OW Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information concerning this rulemaking, 

contact: Tracy Bone, U.S. EPA, Office of 

Water, Mailcode 4305T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC, 20460; telephone number (202) 

564–5257; email address: 

bone.tracy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

Does this action apply to me? 

Citizens concerned with water quality 

in Florida may be interested in this 

rulemaking. Entities discharging 

nitrogen or phosphorus to lakes and 

flowing waters of Florida could be 

indirectly affected by this rulemaking 

because water quality standards (WQS) 

are used in determining National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit limits. Categories and 

entities that may ultimately be affected 

include: 

Category Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ............................................................................... Industries discharging pollutants to lakes and flowing waters in the State of Florida. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS