[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 15, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47404-47411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21825]



[[Page 47403]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 52 and 81



Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of 
Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of the 
Columbus Area to Attainment for Ozone; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 74 , No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 47404]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0220; FRL-8952-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of the 
Columbus Area to Attainment for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking several related actions affecting the Columbus, 
Ohio 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is making a 
determination under the Clean Air Act (CAA) that the Columbus area has 
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(NAAQS). The Columbus area includes Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, 
Knox, Licking, and Madison Counties. This determination is based on 
quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2006-2008 
ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been 
attained in the area. Preliminary 2009 air quality data show that the 
area continues to attain the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is approving, 
as a revision to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP), the state's 
plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2020 in the area. 
EPA is approving a request from the state of Ohio to redesignate the 
Columbus area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is approving 
the 2002 base year emissions inventory for the Columbus area as meeting 
the requirements of the CAA. Finally, EPA finds adequate and is 
approving the state's 2012 and 2020 volatile organic compound (VOC) and 
oxides of nitrogen (NO<INF>X</INF>) Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 
(MVEBs) for the Columbus area.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 15, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action: Docket ID No. 
EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0220. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 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 copyrighted 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 
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, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a5c1c4c2cad6d1cccbca8bcec4d1cdc9c0c0cbe5c0d5c48bc2cad3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="701411171f0304191e1f5e1b1104181c15151e301500115e171f06">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 Is the Background for This Rule?
II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Rule?
III. What Action Is EPA Taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is the Background for This Rule?

A. What Is the General Background Information?

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone 
standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). EPA published a final rule 
designating and classifying areas under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on 
April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857).
    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a more stringent 8-hour ozone 
standard of 0.075 ppm. This rule was published in the Federal Register 
on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436). It is expected that EPA will designate 
nonattainment areas under the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in 2010. 
Today's approval of Ohio's SIP revision addresses only the status of 
the Columbus area with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    The background for today's actions with respect to the 1997 ozone 
standard is discussed in detail in EPA's June 12, 2009, proposal (74 FR 
27973). In that rulemaking, we noted that, under EPA regulations at 40 
CFR part 50, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the three-
year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average 
ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. (See 69 FR 
23857 (April 30, 2004) for further information). 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, as determined in accordance with Appendix I of 
Part 50.
    Under the CAA, EPA may redesignate nonattainment areas to 
attainment if sufficient complete, quality-assured data are available 
to determine that the area has attained the standard and if it meets 
the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E).
    On March 17, 2009, the Ohio EPA submitted a request to redesignate 
the Columbus area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. The 
request included three years of complete, quality-assured data for the 
period of 2006 through 2008, indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had 
been achieved. The area continues to attain the standard based on 
preliminary data available in 2009. The June 12, 2009, proposed rule 
provides a detailed discussion of how Ohio met this and other CAA 
requirements.

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?

    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 D.C. 
Circuit Court clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with 
regard to those parts of the rule that had been successfully 
challenged. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 485 F.3d 1245 
(D.C. Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule 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, remain effective. The June 8th 
decision 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 8th decision reaffirmed the Court's 
December 22, 2006, decision that EPA

[[Page 47405]]

had improperly failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour 
nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding 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, contingent on 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 8th 
decision 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.
    For the reasons set forth in the proposal, EPA does not believe 
that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to this 
redesignation action so as to preclude 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.
    With respect to the requirement for transportation conformity under 
the 1-hour standard, the Court in its June 8th decision clarified that, 
for those areas with 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets in their 
maintenance plans, anti-backsliding requires only 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.

C. What Are the Impacts of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Remand?

    As discussed in greater detail in the proposal, EPA has considered 
the relationship of the Columbus area's maintenance plan to the 
reductions currently required pursuant to the Clean Air Interstate 
Rule. 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 NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call and Ohio has now 
demonstrated that the area can maintain without any additional 
requirements (beyond those required by the NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call). 
Therefore, EPA believes that Ohio's demonstration of maintenance under 
sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) remains valid.
    The NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call requires states to make significant, 
specific emissions reductions. It also provided a mechanism, the 
NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Trading Program, which states could use to 
achieve those reductions. When EPA promulgated CAIR, it discontinued 
(starting in 2009) the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Trading Program. In addition, 
because the provisions of CAIR including the ozone season 
NO<INF>X</INF> trading program remain in place during the remand, EPA 
is not currently administering the NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Trading 
Program. Nonetheless, all states, regardless of the current status of 
their regulations that previously required participation in the 
NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Trading Program, will remain subject to all of 
the requirements in the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call, including 
the statewide NO<INF>X</INF> emission budgets, continue to apply after 
revocation of the 1-hour standard.
    In the case of Ohio, the state has retained the SIP provisions 
requiring sources to participate in the NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Trading 
Program. Ohio EPA is in the process of promulgating a rule change 
stating that the NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Trading Program would not be 
applicable so long as CAIR remains in place. However, the drafted rule 
revision also provides that should CAIR requirements be removed, the 
NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Trading Program would once again apply, on 
condition that EPA maintains a NO<INF>X</INF> Budget Trading Program.
    All NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> SIP call requirements 
can be relied upon in demonstrating maintenance. Here, the state has 
demonstrated maintenance based in part on those requirements.

II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Rule?

    EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period. The comment period 
closed on July 13, 2009. EPA received comments in support of the 
redesignation from the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission and 
adverse comments from the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). A 
summary of the comments received, and EPA's responses, follow.
    (1) Comment: Ohio EPA's redesignation request fails to demonstrate 
compliance with the ozone NAAQS. The Franklin County New Albany monitor 
has a fourth-highest three-year average of 0.084 ppm, which is higher 
than the 0.08 ppm standard. EPA contends that the relevant standard is 
complied with because the area has achieved average 8-hour ozone 
concentrations less than 0.085 ppm. While 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, 
purports to authorize such a rounding convention, its use here 
improperly inflates the 1997 standard from its actual value of 0.08 ppm 
and would allow an area to be considered to be in attainment even 
though it has fourth-highest 3-year average concentrations that exceed 
the actual ozone NAAQS. Such rounding approach has been rejected by 
EPA's own scientific advisory committee in developing the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS, and it would be arbitrary and capricious for EPA to use it here.
    Response: EPA promulgated the 1997 8-hour ozone standard on July 
18, 1997 (62 FR 38856). As part of this rulemaking, EPA promulgated 40 
CFR 50 Appendix I, entitled ``Interpretation of the 8-hour Primary and 
Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone,'' which 
provides rounding procedures under which observed values which round to 
0.08 ppm are considered to reflect attainment of the standard. As 
discussed in detail in the proposed rule, an area is considered to be 
in attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard if 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 does not exceed 
0.084 ppm. Comments regarding the adequacy of the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard should have been submitted in response to the proposal on that 
standard and its implementing regulations that include the data 
handling and rounding

[[Page 47406]]

conventions 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix I. The definition of the standard 
as set forth in the applicable regulations cannot be challenged here. 
In addition, in adopting the 2008 standard, 0.075 ppm, EPA changed the 
``degree of precision to which the level of the standard is specified 
to the thousandth ppm'' (72 FR 37882 (July 11, 2007)), expressing the 
standard out to three decimal places instead of two, as was previously 
done with the 1997 standard. While this was a different way of 
expressing the standard, it did not undermine the implementation of the 
1997 standard. As stated in the final rulemaking on the 2008 standard: 
``Truncating both the individual 8-hour averages used to determine the 
annual fourth maximum as well as the three-year average of the fourth 
maxima to the third decimal place is consistent with the approach used 
in Appendix I for the previous 8-hour ozone standard. 73 FR 16436, 
16501 (March 27, 2008). The 2008 three-digit standard achieves the same 
result that would have been accomplished by adopting a 0.07 standard 
and permitting rounding up to 0.075. Thus it does not represent, as 
commenters contend, a repudiation of the result of rounding in the 1997 
standard. It is therefore not only consistent with the existing statute 
and regulations, but entirely reasonable, for EPA to implement the 1997 
standard as it has here.
    (2) Comment: Redesignation is inappropriate because the Columbus 
area is out of attainment of the 2008 ozone standard, which is 
currently set at 0.075 ppm. As such, the Columbus area has not 
demonstrated compliance with the currently applicable NAAQS and, 
therefore, cannot be considered in attainment with CAA ozone standards. 
Redesignation to attainment under the 1997 standard would suspend 
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirements and other measures that 
would enable the area to make progress toward attainment of the 2008 
standard.
    The ruling in Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), does not 
compel a different conclusion. In that case, redesignation for the 
Cincinnati area was challenged because, inter alia, another rulemaking 
proceeding had found that the area was certain or highly likely to 
require additional emission reductions. The court rejected the 
challenge because the other proceeding was not an attainment rulemaking 
and its data were outdated. In this case, however, Ohio has made a 
nonattainment recommendation under the 2008 standard using data that 
are not out of date, and thus redesignation to attainment here would 
not be reasonable. As the Wall court stated, ``[A]ny final 
determination regarding the adequacy of a maintenance plan will be made 
`in light of the particular circumstances facing the area proposed for 
redesignation and based on all relevant information available at the 
time.' '' 265 F.3d at 430. A pending designation of nonattainment is 
relevant information that forecloses redesignation to attainment at 
this time.
    Response: The area's status with respect to the 2008 standard does 
not foreclose redesignation for the 1997 standard. The redesignation 
being considered in this action is pertinent to only for the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard. Designations for the 2008 8-hour standard have not 
yet occurred, and will be made in the future in accordance with the 
process for designating areas under the new standard. This 
redesignation rulemaking action is not related to that future 
designation action. As set forth above, the state's recommendation to 
designate the area as nonattainment for the 2008 standard does not, as 
commenters contend, foreclose redesignation of the area for purposes of 
the 1997 standard. EPA has not yet acted on the state's recommendation, 
and even had it done so, this would not prevent redesignation for the 
prior standard. Indeed, it would be inappropriate to retain the 1997 8-
hour nonattainment designation, if no longer applicable, solely on the 
assumption that the Columbus area might be designated as nonattainment 
for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the future. EPA has in the past 
continued to redesignate areas under existing standards even after the 
adoption of new standards for the same pollutant. After adopting the 
1997 8-hour ozone standard, EPA continued to redesignate areas for the 
1-hour ozone standard until that standard was revoked. See, for 
example, Cincinnati redesignation, 70 FR 35946 (June 21, 2005).
    Thus, even after the area receives its designation for the new 
standard, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and the 2008 8-hour ozone 
standard are considered to be separable in terms of requiring emission 
controls and determining the area's attainment status. Subsequent to 
the adoption of the 2008 standard, EPA has continued to redesignate for 
the 1997 ozone standard those areas attaining that ozone standard and 
otherwise meeting redesignation requirements. See, for example, Detroit 
redesignation, 74 FR 30950 (June 29, 2009); Clearfield and Indiana 
Counties, Pennsylvania redesignation, 74 FR 11674 (March 19, 2009); 
Greene County, Pennsylvania redesignation, 74 FR 11671 (March 19, 
2009); and Kewaunee County, Wisconsin redesignation, 73 FR 29436 (May 
21, 2008).
    Commenters have noted that the redesignation would be 
``counterproductive'' because it would ``suspend RFP and other measures 
that would enable the area to make progress towards attainment of the 
2008 standard.'' This contention, however, is not an obstacle to 
redesignaton for attainment of the 1997 ozone standard. The Sixth 
Circuit has previously approved as reasonable EPA's interpretation of 
what constitutes interference with a new standard under section 110(l), 
and it does not include ``that which does not advance'' as opposed to 
that which ``hinder[s] or make[s] worse.'' Kentucky Resources Council 
v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986, 995 (6th Cir. 2006). In any event, we have 
evaluated this redesignation with respect to section 110(l) and have 
determined that it will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of 
the 2008 ozone standard nor any other standard, since the area is 
attaining the 1997 ozone standard, no control measures are being 
removed from the SIP, and no implementation ceased. See Id. (showing 
deference to EPA's interpretation of section 110(l)). See also the 
discussion of 110(l) in the Cincinnati 1-hour ozone redesignation at 70 
FR 35960. The rationale stated in the Cincinnati redesignation applies 
here as well:

    EPA does not believe that approving a maintenance plan 
containing existing control measures that the State has demonstrated 
will provide emission reductions sufficient to maintain the 1-hour 
ozone standard can in any way interfere with Ohio's obligations 
under the PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 8-hour ozone standards for 
Cincinnati. EPA is not approving any relaxation of the existing 
control measures so emissions of VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> will not 
increase as a consequence of this action. Moreover, Ohio will still 
have to meet whatever obligations it may have regarding the 
implementation of the new standards and determining that existing 
control measures will provide for maintenance of the 1-hour standard 
does not impair nor interfere with the state's obligations regarding 
the new standards. EPA does not believe that section 110(l) 
transforms this redesignation action into an obligation for the 
State to comply with its SIP obligations for the new standards 
earlier than otherwise required which is the implication of the 
assertion that this action cannot proceed without a demonstration 
that additional control measures are not necessary to prevent 
interference with attainment of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 8-hour 
ozone standards. Moreover, the commenter does not present any 
evidence or even assert that there is anything about any of the 
control measures contained in the maintenance plan that would

[[Page 47407]]

somehow interfere with PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 8-hour ozone attainment, or 
other requirements. EPA does not believe that approval of this 
maintenance plan would interfere with the 8-hour ozone or 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> attainment or other obligations applicable to the 
Cincinnati area. As Cincinnati's ability to implement those 
standards would be the same if this redesignation were not 
occurring, approval of the maintenance plan cannot interfere with 
the requirements applicable for those standards.

70 FR 35960 (June 21, 2005). Thus EPA has determined that the 
redesignation of the area does not interfere with attainment of the 
2008 8-hour ozone standard and complies with the provisions of section 
110(l) of the CAA.
    (3) Comment: Ohio EPA has not provided an adequate maintenance 
plan. Ohio EPA has failed to fully satisfy the requirement that it 
include contingency measures for ensuring continued attainment that can 
take effect ``without further action by the State or EPA.'' 42 U.S.C. 
7402(c)(9). EPA interprets that provision as requiring that the state 
or EPA need not take any ``further rulemaking activities'' in order for 
the contingency measures to be carried out. EPA, State Implementation 
Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498, 13512; Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 
F. 3d 527, 541 (6th Cir. 2004). While Ohio EPA has identified a series 
of possible contingency measures and triggers for possible 
implementation of those measures, the agency also notes that ``adoption 
of any additional control measures is subject to the necessary 
administrative and legal process * * * required by Ohio law for 
rulemaking.'' (Ohio EPA request, p. 37). EPA must ensure that Ohio EPA 
can adopt such additional control measures without the need for 
additional rulemaking before any redesignation for the Columbus area 
can be made.
    Response: Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan 
include contingency provisions, as EPA deems necessary, to promptly 
correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of 
the area. Contrary to commenter's contention, these contingency 
measures are not the same as those required for nonattainment areas 
under sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). The statutory provision under 
section 175A for maintenance plan contingency measures to be employed 
after redesignation to attainment is distinct from the requirement for 
contingency measures for nonattainment areas prior to attainment. As 
explicitly discussed in EPA's September 4, 1992, redesignation policy 
memorandum from John Calcagni entitled ``Procedures for Processing 
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' ``For the purposes of 
section 175A, a State is not required to have fully adopted contingency 
measures that will take effect without further action by the State in 
order for the maintenance plan to be approved.'' EPA has applied this 
interpretation since 1992, and it has been referred to and relied upon 
by the Sixth Circuit. In Greenbaum v. EPA, cited by the commenters, the 
Sixth Circuit stated that under section 175A, the EPA ``has been 
granted broad discretion by Congress in determining what is `necessary 
to assure' prompt correction.'' 370 F.3d at 540. In that case, the 
state had chosen to adopt as contingency measures under section 175A 
those measures that it had originally adopted pursuant to section 
172(c)(9), so the measures happened to meet the requirement of that 
section that no further state action be necessary. But nothing mandates 
that section 175A contingency measures meet the strictures that apply 
solely to section 172(c)(9) measures. The General Preamble language 
cited by the commenters, that ``no further rulemaking activities by the 
State or EPA would be needed to implement the contingency measures,'' 
addresses contingency measures under section 172(c)(9). Indeed, the 
Sixth Circuit in Greenbaum pointed out that this limitation does not 
apply to contingency measures under section 175A, noting that the 
Calcagni memorandum states that ``[f]or the purposes of section 175A, a 
State is not required to have fully adopted contingency measures that 
will take effect without further action by the State in order for the 
maintenance plan to be approved.'' 370 F.3d at 541.
    Ohio EPA included the following list of potential contingency 
measures in the maintenance plan for the Columbus area: a lower Reid 
vapor pressure gasoline program; VOC Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACT) on existing sources covered by EPA control technique 
guidelines issued after the 1990 CAA; lower applicability of VOC RACT 
rules to cover smaller existing sources; one or more transportation 
control measures sufficient to achieve at least half a percent 
reduction in actual area wide VOC emissions; alternative fuel and 
diesel retrofit programs for fleet vehicle operations; high volume, low 
pressure coating application requirements for autobody facilities; 
regulations for cold cleaner degreaser operations (low vapor pressure 
solvents); VOC or NO<INF>X</INF> emission offsets for new and modified 
major sources; VOC or NO<INF>X</INF> emission offsets for new and 
modified minor sources; VOC or NO<INF>X</INF> controls on new minor 
sources (less than 100 tons per year (tpy)); increase in the ratio of 
emission offsets required for new sources; and, NO<INF>X</INF> RACT for 
existing combustion sources. The state can choose to implement one or 
more of these measures as necessary to correct a violation of the 
standard. As set forth in the proposal, we find that the contingency 
measures included in the maintenance plan are adequate to assure that 
the state will promptly correct a future violation of the standard that 
occurs after redesignation.
    (4) Comment: Ohio EPA has not provided any information showing that 
it has adequate resources to enforce the steps relied on in the 
maintenance plan. Such information is required by 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2)(C) which requires that each plan ``include a program to 
provide for the enforcement of measures'' described in the plan, and 40 
CFR 51.280, which requires a ``description of the resources available 
to the State and local agencies * * * and any additional resources 
needed to carry out the plan'' for the next five years. Ohio EPA, 
however, has simply asserted that it ``has the legal authority and 
necessary resources to actively enforce any violations of its rules or 
permit provisions.'' (Ohio EPA Request, p. 35). The agency has not 
identified what those resources are, or explained how they are 
purportedly adequate to ensure enforcement of the plan. This 
shortcoming is especially troublesome given that Ohio faces a $3.2 
billion budget deficit and will likely be cutting agency budgets to try 
to close that gap.
    Response: As discussed in detail in the proposal, section 
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a 
nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) 
allows for redesignation provided that, among other things, the area 
has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D. 
Section 110(a) of Title I of the CAA contains the general requirements 
for a SIP, including the requirement that the state provide ``necessary 
assurances that the State * * * will have adequate personnel, funding, 
and authority under state * * * law to carry out such implementation 
plan * * *.'' The courts are in agreement that: ``Congress has left to 
the Administrator's sound discretion determination of what assurances 
are `necessary.' '' NRDC v. EPA, 478 F.2d 875, 884 (1st Cir. 1973); 
Friends of the Earth v. EPA, 499 F. 2d 1118, 1126 (2d. Cir. 1974), BCCA 
Appeal Group v. EPA,

[[Page 47408]]

355 F. 3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003). In a December 5, 2007, SIP submittal, 
Ohio EPA asserted that it continues to retain the resources necessary 
to evaluate ambient air quality, develop plans to attain new and 
existing ambient air quality standards, run a complete new source 
review program, and effectively enforce all applicable requirements. In 
support of Ohio EPA's assertion that the state continues to staff and 
implement a vigorous enforcement program, the submittal included Ohio 
EPA's Enforcement Report: 2006. As documented in the report, Ohio's 
Division of Air Pollution Control reduced 160 tpy VOC and 419 tpy 
NO<INF>X</INF> through enforcement actions, secured $1,248,917 in 
penalties and issued 41 orders. In addition, the department resolved 
96% of its enforcement cases older than 21 months and all verified 
complaints within two years. With respect to legal authority, Ohio 
Revised Code 3704.03 provides the Director of Ohio EPA with the 
authority to develop rules and regulations necessary to meet state and 
Federal ambient air quality standards and to implement the program.
    The Court found that EPA was entitled to rely on the state's 
certification that the SIP was a valid exercise of its legal authority. 
See Ohio Envtl. Council v. EPA, 593 F.2d 24, 28 (6th Cir. 1979). In 
BCCA v. EPA, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the state 
had ``provided a general assurance that its fiscal and manpower 
resources were adequate to implement the SIP as a whole.'' The Court 
also determined that the Houston, Texas SIP ``provided a detailed 
discussion about the legal authority of state and local agencies to 
implement, maintain, and enforce the plan as a whole, including 
citations to applicable law.'' 355 F.3d at 844. The Fifth Circuit found 
that, ``[b]ased on its past experience with Texas's air quality program 
and its relationship with the state, the EPA determined that these 
assurances regarding funding, resources, and legal authority met the 
minimum requirements of Sec.  7410(a)(2)(E).'' Finding that EPA had 
also evaluated the state's funding and resources and determined they 
were adequate, the Court concluded that EPA approval was in compliance 
with the CAA and not arbitrary and capricious. 355 F.3d at 843-845.
    Commenters here raise the identical claim regarding section 110 
(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.280 that petitioners set forth in the 
Cincinnati 1-hour ozone redesignation case Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 
(6th Cir. 2001). In Wall, the Sixth Circuit concluded that ``there is 
no language in the CAA or in the EPA's regulations that specifically 
requires that a separate commitment be made within the maintenance 
plans themselves. Thus, the EPA permissibly determined that Kentucky 
and Ohio fulfilled the requirement of submitting a `program to provide 
for enforcement of the [maintenance] measures' when such measures were 
already approved in their earlier SIPs.'' Id. at 438.
    As pointed out in the Wall case, EPA has previously approved the 
state SIP as meeting 110(a)(2)(C) requirements in acting on the state's 
1-hour ozone SIP. The enforcement of the 8-hour ozone standard is a 
continuation of this same enforcement program, and the state has 
submitted confirmation that the area's 8-hour SIP continues to meet 
those requirements.
    In addition, EPA periodically reviews state enforcement programs 
for adequacy. The EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, 
EPA's ten regions, the Environmental Council of States Compliance 
Committee, and other state representatives jointly developed a method 
to assess state performance in the enforcement and compliance assurance 
program. EPA performs this assessment on a four-year cycle. The most 
recent assessment of Ohio EPA's enforcement program using this 
framework was released by EPA on September 27, 2007. In that 
assessment, EPA found that Ohio EPA is implementing an adequate 
enforcement program. Ohio EPA's enforcement actions have been found to 
be generally successful at bringing sources back into compliance in a 
specific time frame, with well-defined penalties. Further, Ohio EPA's 
inspection reports meet the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Act 
Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS). While EPA noted 
that Ohio EPA could make improvements regarding reporting issues and 
timeliness of enforcement actions, the state has since addressed these 
concerns by implementing the corrective actions recommended by EPA in 
that assessment.
    In addition, as required under 40 CFR 35.115, EPA reviews Ohio 
EPA's air pollution control activities, including enforcement, on a 
yearly basis. In EPA's most recent review, dated February 24, 2009, EPA 
found no areas of concern regarding Ohio EPA's ability to adequately 
implement and enforce its air control programs. During the 2008 Federal 
fiscal reporting year, Ohio EPA's commitment under the CMS was to 
complete 342 Title V source full compliance evaluations. There were 375 
full compliance evaluations reported to EPA's AIRS Facility Subsystem 
(AFS) database. In addition, Ohio EPA exceeded the commitment to 
conduct 210 synthetic minor source full compliance evaluations by 
reporting 225 evaluations to AFS.
    As in the BCCA case, the state has also certified that it has 
adequate legal authority, and based on EPA's past experience with the 
state's air quality program and its relationship with the state, as 
well as its evaluation of the current situation, EPA has determined 
that these circumstances assure that the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(E) and section 110(a)(2)(C) have been met.
    (5) Comment: EPA proposes that it can approve Ohio EPA's request to 
redesignate the Columbus area because the area is classified as a 
subpart 1 nonattainment area, to which subpart 2 requirements do not 
apply. This argument fails, however, because the subpart 1 
classification has been vacated by the D.C. Circuit. South Coast Air 
Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F. 3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In the wake 
of the vacatur, EPA is proposing to redesignate subpart 1 nonattainment 
areas as moderate subpart 2 nonattainment areas, but this proposed rule 
has not been finalized (74 FR 2936). Because the current classification 
has been vacated, however, EPA cannot make use of that classification's 
requirements to avoid the stringent VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> controls 
that are required before the Columbus area can be redesignated to 
attainment.
    EPA contends that it can redesignate Columbus to attainment under 
subpart 1 now and then classify the area later as moderate 
nonattainment under subpart 2 when the proposed rule is finalized. The 
agency attempts to justify this proposal by saying that its policy is 
to evaluate requests for redesignation according to requirements in 
place at the time the request is submitted, rather than to 
retroactively impose requirements on the area. EPA's argument, however, 
ignores the fact that judicial decisions ``must be given full 
retroactive effect.'' Harper v. Va. Dep't of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 97 
(1993). The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's decision 
to vacate the subpart 1 classifications demonstrates that the decision 
to exempt such nonattainment areas from subpart 2 requirements was 
never valid or effective and ``restores the status quo before the 
invalid rule took effect * * *.'' Envtl. Def. v. Leavitt, 329 F. Supp. 
2d 55, 64 (D.D.C. 2004). As such, EPA can allow redesignation of the 
Columbus area only under the applicable subpart 2 requirements, not the 
less stringent and vacated subpart 1 classification.

[[Page 47409]]

    Response: 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, 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.
    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA published a final rule 
designating and classifying areas under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 
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, 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 Columbus area was designated as a subpart 1, 8-hour 
ozone nonattainment area by EPA on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857, 23927) 
based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003 (69 FR 23860).
    As noted by the commenter, 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. On June 8, 2007, in response to several 
petitions for rehearing, the D. C. Circuit Court clarified that the 
Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule 
that had been successfully challenged. 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. Despite the vacatur of classifications under subpart 1, 
subpart 1 requirements continue to apply to all nonattainment areas.
    In its January 16, 2009, proposed rulemaking in response to the 
South Coast decision, EPA has proposed to classify Columbus under 
subpart 2 as a moderate area.\74\ FR 2936, 2944. If EPA finalizes the 
January 16 rulemaking, new requirements for areas reclassified under 
subpart 2 will be become applicable for purposes of redesignation 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As noted in the proposal, ``Areas originally covered under 
subpart 1 that have already been redesignated to attainment will not 
be affected by this rule * * *.'' 74 FR 2939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 this interpretation. 
See, e.g. also 68 FR 25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation 
of St. Louis).
    At the time the redesignation request was submitted, the Columbus 
area was not classified under subpart 2, nor were there any subpart 2 
requirements yet due for this area. As noted above, even if the 
Columbus area were reclassified under subpart 2, the new requirements 
would not become applicable for purposes of redesignation until they 
become 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. Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any 
new SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request 
was submitted. The D.C. Circuit has recognized the inequity in such 
retroactive rulemaking. Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 
2002). In any event, what Sierra Club sought--to have the effective 
date of EPA's court-ordered determination converted to the date the 
statute envisioned, rather than the actual date of EPA's action--was a 
form of relief the D.C. Circuit quite properly rejected. Court-ordered 
or not, EPA engaged in rulemaking. The Supreme Court has held that the 
Administrative Procedures Act prohibits retroactive rulemaking. See 
Georgetown Univ. Hosp. v. Bowen, 821 F.2d 750, 756-58 & n.11 (D.C. Cir. 
1987), aff'd, 488 U.S. 204 (1988).
    Thus, the D.C. Circuit concluded that even if EPA should have 
accomplished the reclassification at an earlier date, it would be wrong 
for EPA or the Court to impose requirements retroactive to that date 
without having given the state an opportunity to meet them. Sierra Club 
v. Whitman, 285 F.3d at 68. The commenter contends that here ``[t]he 
Court's decision to vacate the subpart 1 classifications `restores the 
status quo before the invalid rule took effect * * *.' '' and then 
implies that the ``status quo'' is the applicable subpart 2 
requirements. However, for areas such as Columbus, that were classified 
under subpart 1, the subpart 2 classification was not the status quo. 
There is no established ``status quo'' classification in light of the 
vacatur. EPA has not yet finalized the area's classification under 
subpart 2, and deadlines for submitting subpart 2 requirements have not 
yet been imposed on the areas that were classified as subpart 1. The 
Seventh Circuit in the St. Louis case agreed with EPA that, even after 
the St. Louis area was reclassified to serious, for purposes of 
redesignation the serious area requirements need not be met if the 
deadlines for their submission have not come due. Sierra Club v. EPA, 
375 F.3d 537.
    EPA is attempting to address the court's vacatur by establishing a 
classification system for the former subpart 1 areas. Until this is 
done, the only requirements currently applicable to these areas are the 
subpart 1 requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas.

III. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is making a determination that the Columbus area has attained 
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also approving the maintenance plan SIP 
revision for the Columbus area. EPA's approval of the maintenance plan 
is based on Ohio's demonstration that the plan meets the requirements 
of section 175A of the CAA. After evaluating Ohio's redesignation 
request, EPA has determined that it meets the redesignation criteria 
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Therefore, EPA is 
approving the redesignation of the Columbus area from nonattainment to 
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is approving the 2002 base 
year emissions inventory for the Columbus area as meeting the 
requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. Finally, EPA also finds 
adequate and is approving the state's 2012 and 2020 MVEBs for the 
Columbus area.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause 
for this action to become effective immediately upon publication. This 
is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of 
a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the area from certain CAA 
requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective 
date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C.

[[Page 47410]]

553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective 
less than 30 days after publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes 
an exemption or relieves a restriction,'' and section 553(d)(3) which 
allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication ``as 
otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published 
with the rule.'' The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 
section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust 
their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's 
rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such 
that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes 
effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the state of planning 
requirements for this 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. For these 
reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this action 
to become effective on the date of publication of this action.

IV. 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 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 action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to 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 approves 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 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 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 
Act. 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., enacted 
pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that, before a rule may take effect, the 
agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report which includes a 
copy of the rule to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A 
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in 
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 
5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 16, 2009. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of the action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 
Volatile organic compounds.

[[Page 47411]]

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: August 26, 2009.
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart KK--Ohio

0
2. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraphs (ff)(8) and (hh) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  52.1885  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (ff) * * *
    (8) Approval--On March 17, 2009, the Ohio Environmental Protection 
Agency submitted a request to redesignate the Columbus area to 
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As part of the redesignation 
request, the state submitted a maintenance plan as required by section 
175A of the Clean Air Act. Elements of the section 175 maintenance plan 
include a contingency plan and an obligation to submit a subsequent 
maintenance plan revision in 8 years as required by the Clean Air Act. 
The 2012 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Columbus area are 
54.86 tpd for VOC and 91.64 tpd for NO<INF>X</INF>. The 2020 motor 
vehicle emissions budgets for the area are 36.60 tpd for VOC and 46.61 
tpd for NO<INF>X</INF>.
    (hh) 8-hour Emissions Inventories. (1) Approval--Ohio's 2002 
inventory satisfies the base year emissions inventory requirements of 
section 172(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act for the Columbus area under the 
1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    (2) [Reserved].

PART 81-[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.


0
4. Section 81.336 is amended by revising the entry for Columbus, OH in 
the table entitled ``Ohio-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  81.336  Ohio.

* * * * *

                                          Ohio-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Designation \a\                     Classification
             Designated area              ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Date \1\                Type               Date \1\        Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Columbus, OH:
    Delaware County......................       9/15/09  Attainment.................
    Fairfield County.....................
    Franklin County......................
    Knox County..........................
    Licking County.......................
    Madison County.......................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-21825 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>