66602 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

13See page 42 of Tennessee’s Progress Report. 

14As discussed earlier, these EGUs were 

projected to have controls installed, or projected to 

retire, by 2018 in Tennessee’s regional haze SIP. 

summarizes: (1) The action taken by 

Tennessee under 40 CFR 51.308(h); (2) 

Tennessee’s rationale for the selected 

action; and (3) EPA’s analysis and 

proposed determination regarding the 

State’s action. 

In its Progress Report, Tennessee took 

the action provided for by 40 CFR 

51.308(h)(1), which allows a state to 

submit a negative declaration to EPA if 

the state determines that the existing 

regional haze plan requires no further 

substantive revision at this time to 

achieve the RPGs for Class I areas 

affected by the state’s sources. The basis 

for the State’s negative declaration is the 

findings from the Progress Report, 

including the findings that: Visibility 

has improved at Class I areas in 

Tennessee and at Class I areas impacted 

by sources in Tennessee; overall 

emissions of visibility-impairing 

pollutants from the State’s sources have 

decreased from 2002 to 2008 by 

approximately 25 percent 13 and 

emissions of SO2 from certain EGUs in 

Tennessee have decreased by 

approximately 200,000 tons from 2002– 

2010; 14 and additional EGU control 

measures not relied upon in the State’s 

regional haze plan have occurred or will 

occur in the implementation period and 

are expected to continue to trend 

downward. EPA proposes to conclude 

that Tennessee has adequately 

addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the 

visibility trends at the Class I areas 

impacted by the State’s sources and the 

emissions trends of the State’s largest 

emitters of visibility-impairing 

pollutants indicate that the RPGs for 

Class I areas impacted by source in 

Tennessee will be met. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Tennessee’s Regional Haze Progress 

Report SIP revision, submitted by the 

State on April 19, 2013, as meeting the 

applicable regional haze requirements 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

51.308(h). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

See 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 proposed 

action merely proposes to approve state 

law as meeting federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is 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.); 

• 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); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is 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 

• does 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 15, 2016. 

Kenneth R. Lapierre, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–23291 Filed 9–27–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0269; FRL–9953–12– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; 

Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OhioKentucky-Indiana Area to Attainment 

of the 2008 Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to find that 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OhioKentucky-Indiana area is attaining the 

2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or 

standard) and to approve a request from 

the Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency (Ohio EPA) to redesignate the 

Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area to attainment for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS because the request meets the 

statutory requirements for redesignation 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

The Cincinnati-Hamilton area includes 

Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton, 

and Warren Counties in Ohio; 

Lawrenceburg Township in Dearborn 

County, Indiana; and, Boone, Campbell, 

and Kenton Counties in Kentucky. Ohio 

EPA submitted this request on April 21, 

2016. EPA is also proposing to approve, 

as a revision to the Ohio State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), the state’s 

plan for maintaining the 2008 8-hour 

ozone standard through 2030 in the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Finally, EPA 

finds adequate and is proposing to 

approve the state’s 2020 and 2030 

volatile organic compound (VOC) and 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) Motor Vehicle 

Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the Ohio 

and Indiana portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 28, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2016–0269 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 66603 

1This rule, titled ‘‘Implementation of the 2008 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: 

State Implementation Plan Requirements’’ and 

published at 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015), 

addresses nonattainment area SIP requirements for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including requirements 

pertaining to attainment demonstrations, reasonable 

further progress (RFP), reasonably available control 

technology (RACT), reasonably available control 

measures (RACM), new source review (NSR), 

emission inventories, and the timing requirements 

for SIP submissions and compliance with emission 

control measures in the SIP. This rule also 

addresses the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

and the anti-backsliding requirements that apply 

when the 1997 ozone NAAQS is revoked. 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Scientist, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–1767, 

dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing? 

II. What is the background for these actions? 

III. What are the criteria for redesignation? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Ohio’s 

redesignation request? 

A. Has the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS? 

B. Has Ohio met all applicable 

requirements of section 110 and part D 

of the CAA for the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area, and does the Ohio portion of the 

area have a fully approved SIP under 

section 110(k) of the CAA? 

1. Ohio Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements of Section 110 and Part D 

of the CAA Applicable to the Ohio 

Portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton Area 

for Purposes of Redesignation 

2. The Ohio Portion of the CincinnatiHamilton Area Has a Fully Approved SIP 

for Purposes of Redesignation Under 

Section 110(k) of the CAA 

C. Are the air quality improvements in the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions? 

1. Permanent and Enforceable Emission 

Controls Implemented 

2. Emission Reductions 

3. Meteorology 

D. Does Ohio have a fully approvable 

ozone maintenance plan for the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area? 

1. Attainment Inventory 

2. Has the state documented maintenance 

of the ozone standard in the CincinnatiHamilton area? 

3. Continued Air Quality Monitoring 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

5. What is the contingency plan for the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area? 

V. Has the state adopted approvable motor 

vehicle emission budgets? 

A. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

B. What is the status of EPA’s adequacy 

determination for the proposed VOC and 

NOX MVEBs for the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area? 

C. What is a safety margin? 

VI. Proposed Actions 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What are the actions EPA is 

proposing? 

EPA is proposing to take several 

related actions. EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

nonattainment area is attaining the 2008 

ozone standard, based on qualityassured and certified monitoring data 

for 2013–2015 and that the Ohio portion 

of this area has met the requirements for 

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

of the CAA. EPA is thus proposing to 

approve Ohio EPA’s request to change 

the legal designation of the Ohio portion 

of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

2008 ozone standard. EPA is also 

proposing to approve, as a revision to 

the Ohio SIP, the state’s maintenance 

plan (such approval being one of the 

CAA criteria for redesignation to 

attainment status) for the area. The 

maintenance plan is designed to keep 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area in 

attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

through 2030. Finally, EPA finds 

adequate and is proposing to approve 

the newly-established 2020 and 2030 

MVEBs for the Indiana and Ohio portion 

of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. The 

adequacy comment period for the 

MVEBs began on July 22, 2016, with 

EPA’s posting of the availability of the 

submittal on EPA’s Adequacy Web site 

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

stateresources/transconf/ 

adequacy.htm). The adequacy comment 

period for these MVEBs ended on 

August 22, 2016. EPA did not receive 

any requests for this submittal, or 

adverse comments on this submittal 

during the adequacy comment period. 

In a letter dated August 23, 2016, EPA 

informed Ohio EPA that we found the 

2020 and 2030 MVEBs to be adequate 

for use in transportation conformity 

analyses. Please see section V.B. of this 

rulemaking, ‘‘What is the status of EPA’s 

adequacy determination for the 

proposed VOC and NOX MVEBs for the 

Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area,’’ for further explanation of this 

process. Therefore, we find adequate, 

and are proposing to approve, the 

States’ 2020 and 2030 MVEBs for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

II. What is the background for these 

actions? 

EPA has determined that ground-level 

ozone is detrimental to human health. 

On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a 

revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 

parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 

16436 (March 27, 2008). Under EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained in an 

area when the 3-year average of the 

annual fourth highest daily maximum 8- 

hour average concentration is equal to 

or less than 0.075 ppm, when truncated 

after the thousandth decimal place, at 

all of the ozone monitoring sites in the 

area. See 40 CFR 50.15 and appendix P 

to 40 CFR part 50. 

Upon promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, section 107(d)(1)(B) of 

the CAA requires EPA to designate as 

nonattainment any areas that are 

violating the NAAQS, based on the most 

recent three years of quality assured 

ozone monitoring data. The CincinnatiHamilton area was designated as a 

marginal nonattainment area for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS on May 21, 2012 

(77 FR 30088) (effective July 20, 2012). 

In a final implementation rule for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS (SIP Requirements 

Rule),1 EPA established ozone standard 

attainment dates based on table 1 of 

section 181(a) of the CAA. This 

established an attainment date three 

years after the July 20, 2012, effective 

designation date for areas classified as 

marginal nonattainment for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the 

attainment date for the CincinnatiHamilton area was July 20, 2015. On 

May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26697), in 

accordance with section 181(b)(2)(A) of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
66604 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

2The ozone season is defined by state in 40 CFR 

58 appendix D. For the 2012–2014 and 2013–2015 

time periods, the ozone seasons for Ohio, Indiana, 

and Kentucky were April–October, April– 

September, and March–October, respectively. 

Beginning in 2016, the ozone seasons for Ohio, 

Indiana and Kentucky are March–October. See, 80 

FR 65292, 65466–67 (October 26, 2015). 

the CAA and the provisions of the SIP 

Requirements Rule (40 CFR 51.1103), 

EPA made a determination that the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area attained the 

standard by its July 20, 2015, attainment 

date for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA’s 

determination was based upon 3 years 

of complete, quality-assured and 

certified data for the 2012–2014 time 

period. 

III. What are the criteria for 

redesignation? 

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA 

allows redesignation of an area to 

attainment of the NAAQS provided that: 

(1) The Administrator (EPA) determines 

that the area has attained the NAAQS; 

(2) the Administrator has fully approved 

the applicable 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 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP, 

applicable Federal air pollutant control 

regulations, and other permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions; (4) the 

Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

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 

the purposes of redesignation under 

section 110 and part D of the CAA. 

On April 16, 1992, EPA provided 

guidance on redesignations in the 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498) and 

supplemented this guidance on April 

28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has 

provided further guidance on processing 

redesignation requests in the following 

documents: 

1. ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design 

Value Calculations,’’ Memorandum from Bill 

Laxton. Director, Technical Support Division, 

June 18, 1990; 

2. ‘‘Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of 

Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment 

Areas,’’ Memorandum from G.T. Helms, 

Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 

Branch, April 30, 1992; 

3. ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,’’ 

Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, 

June 1, 1992; 

4. ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, 

Air Quality Management Division, September 

4, 1992 (the ‘‘Calcagni Memorandum’’); 

5. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air 

Act (CAA) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from 

John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, October 28, 1992; 

6. ‘‘Technical Support Documents (TSDs) 

for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,’’ 

Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, 

August 17, 1993; 

7. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests 

for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On 

or After November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993; 

8. ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in 

Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and 

CO Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum 

from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, November 30, 

1993; 

9. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part D 

NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 

14, 1994; and 

10. ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, 

Attainment Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard,’’ Memorandum from 

John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Ohio’s 

redesignation request? 

A. Has the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

attained the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS? 

For redesignation of a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the area has 

attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). An area is 

attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS if it 

meets the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as 

determined in accordance with 40 CFR 

50.15 and appendix P of part 50, based 

on three complete, consecutive calendar 

years of quality-assured air quality data 

for all monitoring sites in the area. To 

attain the NAAQS, the three-year 

average of the annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations (ozone design values) at 

each monitor must not exceed 0.075 

ppm. The air quality data must be 

collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and 

recorded in EPA’s Air Quality System 

(AQS). Ambient air quality monitoring 

data for the 3-year period must also 

meet data completeness requirements. 

An ozone design value is valid if daily 

maximum 8-hour average 

concentrations are available for at least 

90 percent of the days within the ozone 

monitoring seasons,2 on average, for the 

three-year period, with a minimum data 

completeness of 75 percent during the 

ozone monitoring season of any year 

during the three-year period. See section 

2.3 of appendix P to 40 CFR part 50. 

On May 4, 2016, in accordance with 

section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA and the 

provisions of the SIP Requirements Rule 

(40 CFR 51.1103), EPA made a 

determination that the CincinnatiHamilton area attained the standard by 

its July 20, 2015 attainment date for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. This determination 

was based upon 3 years of complete, 

quality-assured and certified data for the 

2012–2014 time period. In addition, 

EPA has reviewed the available ozone 

monitoring data from monitoring sites 

in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area for the 

2013–2015 time period. These data have 

been quality assured, are recorded in the 

AQS, and have been certified. These 

data demonstrate that the CincinnatiHamilton area is attaining the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. The annual fourthhighest 8-hour ozone concentrations 

and the 3-year average of these 

concentrations (monitoring site ozone 

design values) for each monitoring site 

are summarized in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL 4TH HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS AND 3-YEAR AVERAGE OF THE 4TH

HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA

State County Monitor 

2013 

4th high 

(ppm) 

2014 

4th high 

(ppm) 

2015 

4th high 

(ppm) 

2013–2015 

Average 

(ppm) 

Ohio Butler ........................................ 39–017–0004 0.068 0.070 0.070 0.069 

39–017–0018 0.068 0.069 0.070 0.069 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 66605 

3The monitor ozone design value for the monitor 

with the highest 3-year averaged concentration. 

4On October 27, 1992 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued 

a NOX SIP call requiring the District of Columbia 

and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX in order 

to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone 

Continued 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL 4TH HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS AND 3-YEAR AVERAGE OF THE 4TH

HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA—Continued 

State County Monitor 

2013 

4th high 

(ppm) 

2014 

4th high 

(ppm) 

2015 

4th high 

(ppm) 

2013–2015 

Average 

(ppm) 

39–017–9991 0.069 0.069 0.068 0.068 

Clermont ................................... 39–025–0022 0.066 0.068 0.070 0.068 

Clinton ...................................... 39–027–1002 0.064 0.070 0.070 0.068 

Hamilton ................................... 39–061–0006 0.069 0.070 0.072 0.070 

39–061–0010 0.064 0.073 0.070 0.069 

39–061–0040 0.069 0.069 0.071 0.069 

Warren ..................................... 39–165–0007 0.067 0.071 0.071 0.069 

Kentucky .................. Boone ....................................... 21–015–0003 0.059 0.062 0.062 0.061 

Campbell .................................. 21–037–3002 0.072 0.071 0.071 0.071 

The 3-year ozone design value for 

2013–2015 is 0.071 ppm,3 which meets 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in 

today’s action, EPA proposes to 

determine that the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area is attaining the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

EPA will not take final action to 

determine that the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area is attaining the NAAQS nor to 

approve the redesignation of this area if 

the design value of a monitoring site in 

the area exceeds the NAAQS after 

proposal but prior to final approval of 

the redesignation. Preliminary 2016 data 

indicate that this area continues to 

attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As 

discussed in section IV.D.3. below, Ohio 

EPA has committed to continue 

monitoring ozone in this area to verify 

maintenance of the ozone standard. 

B. Has Ohio met all applicable 

requirements of section 110 and part D 

of the CAA for the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area, and does the Ohio portion of the 

area have a fully approved SIP under 

section 110(k) of the CAA? 

As criteria for redesignation of an area 

from nonattainment to attainment of a 

NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA to 

determine that the state has met all 

applicable requirements under section 

110 and part D of title I of the CAA (see 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA) and 

that the state has a fully approved SIP 

under section 110(k) of the CAA (see 

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

proposes to find that Ohio has a fully 

approved SIP under section 110(k) of 

the CAA. Additionally, EPA proposes to 

find that the Ohio SIP satisfies the 

criterion that it meet applicable SIP 

requirements, for purposes of 

redesignation, under section 110 and 

part D of title I of the CAA 

(requirements specific to nonattainment 

areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS). In 

making these proposed determinations, 

EPA ascertained which CAA 

requirements are applicable to the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area and the Ohio 

SIP and, if applicable, whether the 

required Ohio SIP elements are fully 

approved under section 110(k) and part 

D of the CAA. As discussed more fully 

below, SIPs must be fully approved only 

with respect to currently applicable 

requirements of the CAA. 

The September 4, 1992 Calcagni 

memorandum (see ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, 

September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s 

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

the CAA. Under this interpretation, a 

state and the area it wishes to 

redesignate must meet the relevant CAA 

requirements that are due prior to the 

state’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request for the area. See 

also the September 17, 1993, Michael 

Shapiro memorandum and 60 FR 12459, 

12465–66 (March 7, 1995) 

(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, 

Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS). Applicable 

requirements of the CAA that come due 

subsequent to the state’s submittal of a 

complete request remain applicable 

until a redesignation to attainment is 

approved, but are not required as a 

prerequisite to redesignation. See 

section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See 

also 68 FR 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) 

(redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. 

Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS). 

1. Ohio Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements of Section 110 and Part D 

of the CAA Applicable to the Ohio 

Portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton Area 

for Purposes of Redesignation 

a. Section 110 General Requirements for 

Implementation Plans 

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 

delineates the general requirements for 

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

the SIP must have been adopted by the 

state after reasonable public notice and 

hearing, and that, among other things, it 

must: (1) Include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CAA; (2) 

provide for establishment and operation 

of appropriate devices, methods, 

systems and procedures necessary to 

monitor ambient air quality; (3) provide 

for implementation of a source permit 

program to regulate the modification 

and construction of stationary sources 

within the areas covered by the plan; (4) 

include provisions for the 

implementation of part C prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and part 

D new source review (NSR) permit 

programs; (5) include provisions for 

stationary source emission control 

measures, monitoring, and reporting; (6) 

include provisions for air quality 

modeling; and, (7) provide for public 

and local agency participation in 

planning and emission control rule 

development. 

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

requires SIPs to contain measures to 

prevent sources in a state from 

significantly contributing to air quality 

problems in another state. To 

implement this provision, EPA has 

required certain states to establish 

programs to address transport of certain 

air pollutants, e.g., NOX SIP call.4


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
66606 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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

Ohio developed rules governing the control of NOX

emissions from Electric Generating Units (EGUs), 

major non-EGU industrial boilers and turbines, and 

major cement kilns. EPA approved Ohio’s rules as 

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

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

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

on February 4, 2008 (73 FR 6427). 

However, like many of the 110(a)(2) 

requirements, the section 110(a)(2)(D) 

SIP requirements are not linked with a 

particular area’s ozone designation and 

classification. EPA concludes that the 

SIP requirements linked with the area’s 

ozone designation and classification are 

the relevant measures to evaluate when 

reviewing a redesignation request for 

the area. The section 110(a)(2)(D) 

requirements, where applicable, 

continue to apply to a state regardless of 

the designation of any one particular 

area within the state. Thus, we believe 

these requirements are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. See 65 FR 37890 (June 

15, 2000), 66 FR 50399 (October 19, 

2001), 68 FR 25418, 25426–27 (May 13, 

2003). 

In addition, EPA believes that other 

section 110 elements that are neither 

connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions nor linked with an area’s 

ozone attainment status are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The area will still be 

subject to these requirements after the 

area is redesignated to attainment of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. The section 110 

and part D requirements which are 

linked with a particular area’s 

designation and classification are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. This 

approach is consistent with EPA’s 

existing policy on applicability (i.e., for 

redesignations) of conformity and 

oxygenated fuels requirements, 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-AkronLoraine, Ohio final rulemaking, 61 FR 

20458 (May 7, 1996); and Tampa, 

Florida final rulemaking, 60 FR 62748 

(December 7, 1995). See also the 

discussion of this issue in the 

Cincinnati, Ohio ozone redesignation 

(65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and the 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ozone 

redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 

2001). 

We have reviewed Ohio’s SIP and 

have concluded that it meets the general 

SIP requirements under section 110 of 

the CAA, to the extent those 

requirements are applicable for 

purposes of redesignation. On October 

16, 2014 (79 FR 62019), EPA approved 

elements of the SIP submitted by Ohio 

to meet the requirements of section 110 

for the 2008 ozone standard. The 

requirements of section 110(a)(2), 

however, are statewide requirements 

that are not linked to the 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment status of the CincinnatiHamilton area. Therefore, EPA 

concludes that these infrastructure 

requirements are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of review of 

the state’s 8-hour ozone redesignation 

request. 

b. Part D Requirements 

Section 172(c) of the CAA sets forth 

the basic requirements of air quality 

plans for states with nonattainment 

areas that are required to submit them 

pursuant to section 172(b). Subpart 2 of 

part D, which includes section 182 of 

the CAA, establishes specific 

requirements for ozone nonattainment 

areas depending on the areas’ 

nonattainment classifications. 

The Cincinnati-Hamilton area was 

classified as marginal under subpart 2 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As such, 

the area is subject to the subpart 1 

requirements contained in section 

172(c) and section 176. Similarly, the 

area is subject to the subpart 2 

requirements contained in section 

182(a) (marginal nonattainment area 

requirements). A thorough discussion of 

the requirements contained in section 

172(c) and 182 can be found in the 

General Preamble for Implementation of 

Title I (57 FR 13498). 

i. Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements 

As provided in subpart 2, for marginal 

ozone nonattainment areas such as the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area, the specific 

requirements of section 182(a) apply in 

lieu of the attainment planning 

requirements that would otherwise 

apply under section 172(c), including 

the attainment demonstration and 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) under section 172(c)(1), 

reasonable further progress (RFP) under 

section 172(c)(2), and contingency 

measures under section 172(c)(9). 42 

U.S.C. 7511a(a). 

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission 

and approval of a comprehensive, 

accurate and current inventory of actual 

emissions. This requirement is 

superseded by the inventory 

requirement in section 182(a)(1) 

discussed below. 

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 NSR program on January 10, 

2003 (68 FR 1366) and February 25, 

2010 (75 FR 8496). Nonetheless, EPA 

has determined that, since PSD 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation, areas being redesignated 

need not comply with the requirement 

that a NSR program be approved prior 

to redesignation, provided that the area 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

NAAQS without part D NSR. A more 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ Ohio has 

demonstrated that the CincinnatiHamilton area will be able to maintain 

the standard without part D NSR in 

effect; therefore, EPA concludes that the 

state need not have a fully approved 

part D NSR program prior to approval of 

the redesignation request. 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). Ohio’s PSD program will become 

effective in the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area upon redesignation to attainment. 

EPA approved Ohio’s PSD program on 

January 22, 2003 (68 FR 2909) and 

February 25, 2010 (75 FR 8496). 

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

contain control measures necessary to 

provide for attainment of the NAAQS. 

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 SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) for 

purposes of redesignation. 

ii. Section 176 Conformity 

Requirements 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that Federally 

supported or funded projects conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIP. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects that are developed, funded or 

approved under title 23 of the United 

States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal 

Transit Act (transportation conformity) 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 66607 

5CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to 

submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain 

Federal criteria and procedures for determining 

transportation conformity. Transportation 

conformity SIPs are different from SIPs requiring 

the development of Motor Vehicle Emission 

Budgets (MVEBs), such as control strategy SIPs and 

maintenance plans. 

as well as to all other Federally 

supported or funded projects (general 

conformity). State transportation 

conformity SIP revisions must be 

consistent with Federal conformity 

regulations relating to consultation, 

enforcement and enforceability that EPA 

promulgated pursuant to its authority 

under the CAA. 

EPA interprets the conformity SIP 

requirements 5 as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating a redesignation 

request under section 107(d) because 

state conformity rules are still required 

after redesignation and Federal 

conformity rules apply where state 

conformity rules have not been 

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

426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding this 

interpretation); see also 60 FR 62748 

(December 7, 1995) (redesignation of 

Tampa, Florida). Nonetheless, Ohio has 

an approved conformity SIP for the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area. See 80 FR 

11133 (March 2, 2015). 

iii. Section 182(a) Requirements 

Section 182(a)(1) requires states to 

submit a comprehensive, accurate, and 

current inventory of actual emissions 

from sources of VOC and NOX emitted 

within the boundaries of the ozone 

nonattainment area. Ohio EPA 

submitted a 2008 base year emissions 

inventory for the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area on July 18, 2014. EPA approved 

this emissions inventory as a revision to 

the Ohio SIP on March 10, 2016 (81 FR 

12591). 

Under section 182(a)(2)(A), states 

with ozone nonattainment areas that 

were designated prior to the enactment 

of the 1990 CAA amendments were 

required to submit, within six months of 

classification, all rules and corrections 

to existing VOC reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) rules that 

were required under section 172(b)(3) 

prior to the 1990 CAA amendments. The 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area is not subject 

to the section 182(a)(2) RACT ‘‘fix up’’ 

requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

because it was designated as 

nonattainment for this standard after the 

enactment of the 1990 CAA 

amendments and because Ohio 

complied with this requirement for the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area under the 

prior 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 59 FR 

23796 (May 9, 1994) and 60 FR 15235 

(March 23, 1995). 

Section 182(a)(2)(B) requires each 

state with a marginal ozone 

nonattainment area that implemented or 

was required to implement a vehicle 

inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

program prior to the 1990 CAA 

amendments to submit a SIP revision for 

an I/M program no less stringent than 

that required prior to the 1990 CAA 

amendments or already in the SIP at the 

time of the CAA amendments, 

whichever is more stringent. For the 

purposes of the 2008 ozone standard 

and the consideration of Ohio’s 

redesignation request for this standard, 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area is not 

subject to the section 182(a)(2)(B) 

requirement because the CincinnatiHamilton area was designated as 

nonattainment for the 2008 ozone 

standard after the enactment of the 1990 

CAA amendments. 

Regarding the source permitting and 

offset requirements of section 

182(a)(2)(C) and section 182(a)(4), Ohio 

currently has a fully-approved part D 

NSR program in place. EPA approved 

Ohio’s PSD program on January 22, 

2003 (68 FR 2909) and February 25, 

2010 (75 FR 8496). As discussed above, 

Ohio has demonstrated that the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area will be able to 

maintain the standard without part D 

NSR in effect; therefore, EPA concludes 

that 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 Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area upon redesignation to attainment. 

Section 182(a)(3) requires states to 

submit periodic emission inventories 

and a revision to the SIP to require the 

owners or operators of stationary 

sources to annually submit emission 

statements documenting actual VOC 

and NOX emissions. As discussed below 

in section IV.D.4. of this proposed rule, 

Ohio will continue to update its 

emissions inventory at least once every 

three years. With regard to stationary 

source emission statements, EPA 

approved Ohio’s emission statement 

rule on September 27, 2007 (72 FR 

54844). On July 18, 2014, Ohio certified 

that this approved SIP regulation 

remains in place and remains 

enforceable for the 2008 ozone standard. 

EPA approved Ohio’s certification on 

March 10, 2016 (81 FR 12591). 

The Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area has satisfied all 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation under section 110 and 

part D of title I of the CAA. 

2. The Ohio Portion of the CincinnatiHamilton Area Has a Fully Approved 

SIP for Purposes of Redesignation Under 

Section 110(k) of the CAA 

Ohio has adopted and submitted and 

EPA has approved at various times, 

provisions addressing the various SIP 

elements applicable for the ozone 

NAAQS. As discussed above, EPA has 

fully approved the Ohio SIP for the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area under section 

110(k) for all requirements applicable 

for purposes of redesignation under the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA may rely on 

prior SIP approvals in approving a 

redesignation request (see the Calcagni 

memorandum at page 3; Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 

Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–990 (6th 

Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426), 

plus any additional measures it may 

approve in conjunction with a 

redesignation action (see 68 FR 25426 

(May 12, 2003) and citations therein). 

C. Are the air quality improvements in 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions? 

To support the redesignation of an 

area from nonattainment to attainment, 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA 

requires EPA to determine that the air 

quality improvement in the area is due 

to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

the implementation of the SIP and 

applicable Federal air pollution control 

regulations and other permanent and 

other permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions. EPA has 

determined that Ohio has demonstrated 

that that the observed ozone air quality 

improvement in the CincinnatiHamilton area is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in VOC and NOX

emissions resulting from state measures 

adopted into the SIP and Federal 

measures. 

In making this demonstration, the 

state has calculated the change in 

emissions between 2011 and 2014. 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 CincinnatiHamilton area and upwind areas have 

implemented in recent years. In 

addition, Ohio EPA provided an 

analysis to demonstrate the 

improvement in air quality was not due 

to unusually favorable meteorology. 

Based on the information summarized 

below, Ohio has adequately 

demonstrated that the improvement in 

air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
66608 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

6EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 

F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

1. Permanent and Enforceable Emission 

Controls Implemented 

a. Regional NOX Controls 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)/Cross 

State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). CAIR 

created regional cap-and-trade programs 

to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX

emissions in 27 eastern states, including 

Ohio, that contributed to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

NAAQS. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 

2005). EPA approved Ohio’s CAIR 

regulations into the Ohio SIP on 

February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6034), and 

September 25, 2009 (74 FR 48857). In 

2008, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated 

CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 

896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately 

remanded the rule to EPA without 

vacatur to preserve the environmental 

benefits provided by CAIR, North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 

FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit’s 

remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to 

replace CAIR and thus to address the 

interstate transport of emissions 

contributing to nonattainment and 

interfering with maintenance of the two 

air quality standards covered by CAIR as 

well as the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR 

requires substantial reductions of SO2

and NOX emissions from electric 

generating units (EGUs) in 28 states in 

the Eastern United States. 

The D.C. Circuit’s initial vacatur of 

CSAPR 6 was reversed by the United 

States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, 

and the case was remanded to the D.C. 

Circuit to resolve remaining issues in 

accordance with the high court’s ruling. 

EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, 

the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most 

respects, but invalidated without 

vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as 

to a number of states. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 

(D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets 

include the Phase 2 NOX ozone season 

emissions budgets for Ohio. This 

litigation ultimately delayed 

implementation of CSAPR for three 

years, from January 1, 2012, when 

CSAPR’s cap-and-trade programs were 

originally scheduled to replace the CAIR 

cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 

2015. Thus, the rule’s Phase 2 budgets 

were originally promulgated to begin on 

January 1, 2014, and are now scheduled 

to begin on January 1, 2017. CSAPR will 

continue to operate under the existing 

emissions budgets until EPA addresses 

the D.C. Circuit’s remand. 

While the reduction in NOX emissions 

from the implementation of CSAPR will 

result in lower concentrations of 

transported ozone entering the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area throughout 

the maintenance period, EPA is 

proposing to approve the redesignation 

of the Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area without relying on those 

measures within Ohio as having led to 

attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS or 

contributing to maintenance of that 

standard. In so doing, we are proposing 

to determine that the D.C. Circuit’s 

invalidation of the Ohio CSAPR Phase 

2 ozone season NOX emissions budget 

does not bar today’s proposed 

redesignation. 

The improvement in ozone air quality 

in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area from 

2011 (a year when the design value for 

the area was above the NAAQS) to 2014 

(a year when the design value was 

below the NAAQS) is not due to CSAPR 

emissions reductions because, as noted 

above, CSAPR did not go into effect 

until January 1, 2015, after the area was 

already attaining the standard. As a 

general matter, because CSAPR is 

CAIR’s replacement, emissions 

reductions associated with CAIR will for 

most areas be made permanent and 

enforceable through implementation of 

CSAPR. In addition, EPA has 

preliminarily determined that the vast 

majority of reductions in emissions in 

the Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area from 2011–2014 were 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in mobile source VOC and 

NOX emissions. 

EPA found that from 2011 to 2014, 

onroad and nonroad mobile source 

emission reductions accounted for 80 

percent of the total NOX reductions and 

98 percent of the total VOC reductions 

in the Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area. As laid out in the State’s 

maintenance demonstration, NOX and 

VOC emissions in the Ohio portion of 

the area are projected to continue their 

downward trend throughout the 

maintenance period, driven primarily 

by mobile source measures. From 2014 

to 2030, Ohio projected that 75 percent 

of the NOX emission reductions and 96 

percent of the VOC reductions in the 

Ohio portion of the area would be due 

to mobile source measures based on 

EPA-approved mobile source modeling. 

Even if no NOX reductions are assumed 

from point sources within the Ohio 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, 

NOX emissions in 2030 are projected to 

be 30 percent less than in attainment 

year 2014. 

Given the particular facts and 

circumstances associated with the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area, EPA does not 

believe that the D.C. Circuit’s 

invalidation of Ohio’s CSAPR Phase 2 

NOX ozone season budget, which 

replaced CAIR’s NOX ozone season 

budget, is a bar to EPA’s redesignation 

of the Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

b. Federal Emission Control Measures 

Reductions in VOC and NOX

emissions have occurred statewide and 

in upwind areas as a result of Federal 

emission control measures, with 

additional emission reductions expected 

to occur in the future. Federal emission 

control measures include the following. 

Tier 2 Emission Standards for 

Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards. 

On February 10, 2000 (65 FR 6698), EPA 

promulgated Tier 2 motor vehicle 

emission standards and gasoline sulfur 

control requirements. These emission 

control requirements result in lower 

VOC and NOX emissions from new cars 

and light duty trucks, including sport 

utility vehicles. With respect to fuels, 

this rule required refiners and importers 

of gasoline to meet lower standards for 

sulfur in gasoline, which were phased 

in between 2004 and 2006. By 2006, 

refiners were required to meet a 30 ppm 

average sulfur level, with a maximum 

cap of 80 ppm. This reduction in fuel 

sulfur content ensures the effectiveness 

of low emission-control technologies. 

The Tier 2 tailpipe standards 

established in this rule were phased in 

for new vehicles between 2004 and 

2009. EPA estimates that, when fully 

implemented, this rule will cut NOX

and VOC emissions from light-duty 

vehicles and light-duty trucks by 

approximately 76 and 28 percent, 

respectively. NOX and VOC reductions 

from medium-duty passenger vehicles 

included as part of the Tier 2 vehicle 

program are estimated to be 

approximately 37,000 and 9,500 tons 

per year, respectively, when fully 

implemented. In addition, EPA 

estimates that beginning in 2007, a 

reduction of 30,000 tons per year of 

NOX will result from the benefits of 

sulfur control on heavy-duty gasoline 

vehicles. Some of these emission 

reductions occurred by the attainment 

years and additional emission 

reductions will occur throughout the 

maintenance period, as older vehicles 

are replaced with newer, compliant 

model years. 

Tier 3 Emission Standards for 

Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards. 

On April 28, 2014 (79 FR 23414), EPA 

promulgated Tier 3 motor vehicle 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 66609 

emission and fuel standards to reduces 

both tailpipe and evaporative emissions 

and to further reduce the sulfur content 

in fuels. The rule will be phased in 

between 2017 and 2025. Tier 3 sets new 

tailpipe standards for the sum of VOC 

and NOX and for particulate matter. The 

VOC and NOX tailpipe standards for 

light-duty vehicles represent 

approximately an 80% reduction from 

today’s fleet average and a 70% 

reduction in per-vehicle particulate 

matter (PM) standards. Heavy-duty 

tailpipe standards represent about a 

60% reduction in both fleet average 

VOC and NOX and per-vehicle PM 

standards. The evaporative emissions 

requirements in the rule will result in 

approximately a 50 percent reduction 

from current standards and apply to all 

light-duty and onroad gasoline-powered 

heavy-duty vehicles. Finally, the rule 

lowers the sulfur content of gasoline to 

an annual average of 10 ppm by January 

2017. While these reductions did not 

aid the area in attaining the standard, 

emission reductions will occur during 

the maintenance period. 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rules. In 

July 2000, EPA issued a rule for onhighway heavy-duty diesel engines that 

includes standards limiting the sulfur 

content of diesel fuel. Emissions 

standards for NOX, VOC and PM were 

phased in between model years 2007 

and 2010. In addition, the rule reduced 

the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 

15 parts per million by 2007, leading to 

additional reductions in combustion 

NOX and VOC emissions. EPA has 

estimated future year emission 

reductions due to implementation of 

this rule. Nationally, EPA estimated that 

2015 NOX and VOC emissions would 

decrease by 1,260,000 tons and 54,000 

tons, respectively. Nationally, EPA 

estimated that 2030 NOX and VOC 

emissions will decrease by 2,570,000 

tons and 115,000 tons, respectively. As 

projected by these estimates and 

demonstrated in the on-road emission 

modeling for the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area, some of these emission reductions 

occurred by the attainment years and 

additional emission reductions will 

occur throughout the maintenance 

period, as older vehicles are replaced 

with newer, compliant model years. 

Nonroad Diesel Rule. On June 29, 

2004 (69 FR 38958), EPA issued a rule 

adopting emissions standards for 

nonroad diesel engines and sulfur 

reductions in nonroad diesel fuel. This 

rule applies to diesel engines used 

primarily in construction, agricultural, 

and industrial applications. Emission 

standards are phased in for 2008 

through 2015 model years based on 

engine size. The SO2 limits for nonroad 

diesel fuels were phased in from 2007 

through 2012. EPA estimates that when 

fully implemented, compliance with 

this rule will cut NOX emissions from 

these nonroad diesel engines by 

approximately 90 percent. Some of 

these emission reductions occurred by 

the attainment years and additional 

emission reductions will occur 

throughout the maintenance period. 

Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and 

Recreational Engine Standards. On 

November 8, 2002 (67 FR 68242), EPA 

adopted emission standards for large 

spark-ignition engines such as those 

used in forklifts and airport groundservice equipment; recreational vehicles 

such as off-highway motorcycles, allterrain vehicles, and snowmobiles; and 

recreational marine diesel engines. 

These emission standards are phased in 

from model year 2004 through 2012. 

When fully implemented, EPA estimates 

an overall 72 percent reduction in VOC 

emissions from these engines and an 80 

percent reduction in NOX emissions. 

Some of these emission reductions 

occurred by the attainment years and 

additional emission reductions will 

occur throughout the maintenance 

period. 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines. On March 3, 2010 (75 FR 

9648), EPA issued a rule to reduce 

hazardous air pollutants from existing 

diesel powered stationary reciprocating 

internal combustion engines, also 

known as compression ignition engines. 

Amendments to this rule were finalized 

on January 14, 2013 (78 FR 6674). EPA 

estimated that when this rule is fully 

implemented in 2013, NOX and VOC 

emissions from these engines will be 

reduced by approximately 9,600 and 

36,000 tons per year, respectively. 

Category 3 Marine Diesel Engine 

Standards. On April 30, 2010 (75 FR 

22896) EPA issued emission standards 

for marine compression-ignition engines 

at or above 30 liters per cylinder. Tier 

2 emission standards apply beginning in 

2011, and are expected to result in a 15 

to 25 percent reduction in NOX

emissions from these engines. Final Tier 

3 emission standards apply beginning in 

2016 and are expected to result in 

approximately an 80 percent reduction 

in NOX from these engines. Some of 

these emission reductions occurred by 

the attainment years and additional 

emission reductions will occur 

throughout the maintenance period. 

c. Control Measures Specific to the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton Area 

Changes at several EGUs have 

resulted in reductions in NOX

emissions. Tanner’s Creek Generating 

Station in Dearborn County, Indiana 

permanently shut down in May 2015. 

Prior to the shutdown, NOX emissions 

had dropped from 15.08 tons per 

summer day (TPSD) in 2011 to 10.6 

TPSD in 2014. The Walter C. Beckjord 

facility in Clermont County, Ohio 

permanently shut down in October of 

2014. Prior to the shutdown, NOX

emissions from EGUs in Clermont 

County dropped from 43.41 TPSD in 

2011 to 41.17 TPSD in 2014, partly 

attributable to the Walter C. Beckjord 

facility. Finally, Unit 3 (163 megawatts) 

of the Miami Fort facility in Hamilton 

County, Ohio permanently shut down in 

June of 2015. Prior to shutdown, NOX

emissions from EGUs in Hamilton 

County dropped from 17.72 TPSD in 

2011 to 17.46 TPSD in 2014, partly 

attributable to reductions at unit 3 at 

Miami Fort. 

2. Emission Reductions 

Ohio is using a 2011 inventory as the 

nonattainment base year. Area, nonroad 

mobile, airport related emissions (AIR), 

and point source emissions (EGUs and 

non-EGUs) were collected from the 

Ozone NAAQS Implementation 

Modeling platform (2011v6.1). For 2011, 

this represents actual data reported to 

EPA by the states for the 2011 National 

Emissions inventory (NEI). Because 

emissions from state inventory 

databases, the NEI, and the Ozone 

NAAQS Emissions Modeling platform 

are annual totals, tons per summer day 

were derived according to EPA’s 

guidance document ‘‘Temporal 

Allocation of Annual Emissions Using 

EMCH Temporal Profiles’’ dated April 

29 2002, using the temporal allocation 

references accompanying the 2011v6.1 

modeling inventory files. Onroad 

mobile source emissions were 

developed in conjunction with the 

Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional 

Council of Governments (OKI) and were 

calculated from emission factors 

produced by EPA’s 2014 Motor Vehicle 

Emission Simulator (MOVES) model 

and data extracted from the region’s 

travel-demand model. 

For the attainment inventory, Ohio is 

using 2014, one of the years the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area monitored 

attainment of the 2008 ozone standard. 

Because the 2014 NEI inventory was not 

available at the time Ohio EPA was 

compiling the redesignation request, the 

state was unable to use the 2014 NEI 

inventory directly. For area, nonroad 

mobile, and AIR, 2014 emissions were 

derived by interpolating between 2011 

and 2018 Ozone NAAQS Emissions 

Modeling platform inventories. The 

point source sector for the 2014 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
66610 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

inventory was developed using actual 

2014 point source emissions reported to 

the state databases, which serve as the 

basis for the point source emissions 

reported to EPA for the NEI. Summer 

day inventories were derived for these 

sectors using the methodology described 

above. Finally, onroad mobile source 

emissions were developed in 

conjunction with OKI using the same 

methodology described above for the 

2011 inventory. 

Using the inventories described 

above, Ohio’s submittal documents 

changes in VOC and NOX emissions 

from 2011 to 2014 for the CincinnatiHamilton area. Emissions data are 

shown in Tables 2 through 7. 

TABLE 2—CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA NOX EMISSIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT YEAR 2011 (TPSD) 

County Point AIR Nonroad Area Onroad Total 

Ohio: 

Butler ................................................. 10.67 0.02 4.27 4.78 12.24 31.98 

Clermont ........................................... 43.55 0.00 2.27 1.14 7.52 54.48 

Clinton ............................................... 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.52 4.53 6.20 

Hamilton ............................................ 26.29 0.02 8.56 10.09 33.69 78.65 

Warren .............................................. 1.55 0.00 3.24 1.66 9.84 16.29 

Indiana: 

Dearborn ........................................... 17.79 0.00 0.53 0.47 1.03 19.82 

Kentucky: 

Boone ................................................ 7.19 2.03 1.06 0.43 6.90 17.61 

Campbell ........................................... 0.17 0.00 0.38 0.49 4.30 5.34 

Kenton ............................................... 0.01 0.00 0.77 1.02 6.53 8.33 

Ohio Totals ................................ 82.06 0.04 19.49 18.19 67.82 187.60 

Area Totals ......................... 107.22 2.07 22.23 20.60 86.58 238.70 

TABLE 3—CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA VOC EMISSIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT YEAR 2011 (TPSD) 

County Point AIR Nonroad Area Onroad Total 

Ohio: 

Butler ................................................. 3.09 0.03 2.93 9.59 10.21 25.85 

Clermont ........................................... 0.49 0.01 1.95 5.41 6.27 14.13 

Clinton ............................................... 0.00 0.01 0.84 2.49 2.27 5.61 

Hamilton ............................................ 2.62 0.04 7.44 21.88 28.09 60.07 

Warren .............................................. 0.62 0.01 2.12 5.71 8.21 16.67 

Indiana: 

Dearborn ........................................... 4.28 0.00 0.42 1.75 0.86 7.31 

Kentucky: 

Boone ................................................ 1.73 0.42 1.49 2.66 3.30 9.60 

Campbell ........................................... 0.22 0.00 0.40 1.29 2.05 3.96 

Kenton ............................................... 0.51 0.00 0.62 2.51 3.12 6.76 

Ohio Totals ................................ 6.82 0.10 15.28 45.08 55.05 122.33 

Area Totals ......................... 13.56 0.52 18.21 53.29 64.38 149.96 

TABLE 4—CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA NOX EMISSIONS FOR ATTAINMENT YEAR 2014 (TPSD) 

County Point AIR Nonroad Area Onroad Total 

Ohio: 

Butler ................................................. 12.70 0.02 3.39 4.78 8.85 29.74 

Clermont ........................................... 41.20 0.00 1.81 1.14 5.44 49.59 

Clinton ............................................... 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.52 3.51 4.99 

Hamilton ............................................ 21.65 0.02 6.76 10.08 24.37 62.88 

Warren .............................................. 0.96 0.00 2.55 1.66 7.12 12.29 

Indiana: 

Dearborn ........................................... 11.74 0.00 0.44 0.47 0.74 13.39 

Kentucky: 

Boone ................................................ 7.37 2.07 0.88 0.43 5.46 16.21 

Campbell ........................................... 0.17 0.00 0.32 0.49 3.41 4.39 

Kenton ............................................... 0.01 0.00 0.64 1.02 5.17 6.84 

Ohio Totals ................................ 76.51 0.04 15.47 18.18 49.29 159.49 

Area Totals ......................... 95.80 2.11 17.75 20.59 64.07 200.32 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 66611 

TABLE 5—CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA VOC EMISSIONS FOR ATTAINMENT YEAR 2014 (TPSD) 

County Point AIR Nonroad Area Onroad Total 

Ohio: 

Butler ................................................. 2.96 0.03 2.61 9.51 7.59 22.70 

Clermont ........................................... 0.63 0.01 1.73 5.36 4.66 12.39 

Clinton ............................................... 0.01 0.01 0.71 2.51 1.53 4.77 

Hamilton ............................................ 2.73 0.04 6.54 21.66 20.88 51.85 

Warren .............................................. 0.51 0.01 1.93 5.66 6.10 14.21 

Indiana: 

Dearborn ........................................... 5.54 0.00 0.36 1.75 0.64 8.29 

Kentucky: 

Boone ................................................ 1.73 0.42 1.30 2.56 2.53 8.54 

Campbell ........................................... 0.22 0.00 0.34 1.26 1.58 3.40 

Kenton ............................................... 0.51 0.00 0.55 2.43 2.39 5.88 

Ohio Totals ................................ 6.84 0.10 13.52 44.70 40.76 105.92 

Area Totals ......................... 14.84 0.52 16.07 52.70 47.90 132.03 

TABLE 6—CHANGE IN NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS BETWEEN 2011 AND 2014 FOR THE OHIO PORTION OF THE CINCINNATIHAMILTON AREA (TPSD) 

NOX VOC 

2011 2014 Net change 

(2011–2014) 2011 2014 Net change (2011–2014) 

Point ......................................................... 82.06 76.51 ¥5.55 6.82 6.84 0.02 

AIR ........................................................... 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 

Nonroad ................................................... 19.49 15.47 ¥4.02 15.28 13.52 ¥1.76 

Area .......................................................... 18.19 18.18 ¥0.01 45.08 44.70 ¥0.38 

Onroad ..................................................... 67.82 49.29 ¥18.53 55.05 40.76 ¥14.29 

Total .................................................. 187.60 159.49 ¥28.11 122.33 105.92 ¥16.41 

TABLE 7—CHANGE IN NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS BETWEEN 2011 AND 2014 FOR THE ENTIRE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON

AREA (TPSD) 

NOX VOC 

2011 2014 Net change 

(2011–2014) 2011 2014 Net change (2011–2014) 

Point ......................................................... 107.22 95.80 ¥11.42 13.56 14.84 1.28 

AIR ........................................................... 2.07 2.11 0.04 0.52 0.52 0.00 

Nonroad ................................................... 22.23 17.75 ¥4.48 18.21 16.07 ¥2.14 

Area .......................................................... 20.60 20.59 ¥0.01 53.29 52.70 ¥0.59 

Onroad ..................................................... 86.58 64.07 ¥22.51 64.38 47.90 ¥16.48 

Total .................................................. 238.70 200.32 ¥38.38 149.96 132.03 ¥17.93 

Table 7 shows that the CincinnatiHamilton area reduced NOX and VOC 

emissions by 38.38 TPSD and 17.93 

TPSD, respectively, between 2011 and 

2014. As shown in Table 6, the Ohio 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

alone reduced NOX and VOC emissions 

by 28.11 TPSD and 16.41 TPSD, 

respectively, between 2011 and 2014. 

3. Meteorology 

To further support Ohio EPA’s 

demonstration that the improvement in 

air quality between the year violations 

occurred and the year attainment was 

achieved, is due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions and not 

on favorable meteorology, an analysis 

was performed by the Lake Michigan 

Air Directors Consortium (LADCO). A 

classification and regression tree 

(CART) analysis was conducted with 

2000 through 2014 data from three 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area ozone sites. 

The goal of the analysis was to 

determine the meteorological and air 

quality conditions associated with 

ozone episodes, and construct trends for 

the days identified as sharing similar 

meteorological conditions. 

Regression trees were developed for 

the three monitors to classify each 

summer day by its ozone concentration 

and associated meteorological 

conditions. By grouping days with 

similar meteorology, the influence of 

meteorological variability on the 

underlying trend in ozone 

concentrations is partially removed and 

the remaining trend is presumed to be 

due to trends in precursor emissions or 

other non-meteorological influences. 

The CART analysis showed the 

resulting trends in ozone concentrations 

declining over the period examined, 

supporting the conclusion that the 

improvement in air quality was not due 

to unusually favorable meteorology. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
66612 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

D. Does Ohio have a fully approvable 

ozone maintenance plan for the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area? 

As one of the criteria for redesignation 

to attainment section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of 

the CAA requires EPA to determine that 

the area has a fully approved 

maintenance plan pursuant to section 

175A of the CAA. Section 175A of the 

CAA sets forth the elements of a 

maintenance plan for areas seeking 

redesignation from nonattainment to 

attainment. Under section 175A, the 

maintenance plan must demonstrate 

continued attainment of the NAAQS for 

at least 10 years after the Administrator 

approves a redesignation to attainment. 

Eight years after the redesignation, the 

state must submit a revised maintenance 

plan which demonstrates that 

attainment of the NAAQS will continue 

for an additional 10 years beyond the 

initial 10 year maintenance period. To 

address the possibility of future NAAQS 

violations, the maintenance plan must 

contain contingency measures, as EPA 

deems necessary, to assure prompt 

correction of the future NAAQS 

violation. 

The Calcagni Memorandum provides 

further guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan, explaining that a 

maintenance plan should address five 

elements: (1) An attainment emission 

inventory; (2) a maintenance 

demonstration; (3) a commitment for 

continued air quality monitoring; (4) a 

process for verification of continued 

attainment; and (5) a contingency plan. 

In conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the Ohio portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment 

for the 2008 ozone standard, Ohio EPA 

submitted a SIP revision to provide for 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard 

through 2030, more than 10 years after 

the expected effective date of the 

redesignation to attainment. As is 

discussed more fully below, EPA 

proposes to find that Ohio’s ozone 

maintenance plan includes the 

necessary components and is proposing 

to approve the maintenance plan as a 

revision of the Ohio SIP. 

1. Attainment Inventory 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area has 

attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

based on monitoring data for the period 

of 2013–2015. Ohio EPA selected 2014 

as the attainment emissions inventory 

year to establish attainment emission 

levels for VOC and NOX. The attainment 

emissions inventory identifies the levels 

of emissions in the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area that are sufficient to attain the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. The derivation of the 

attainment year emissions was 

discussed above in section IV.C.2. of 

this proposed rule. The attainment level 

emissions, by source category, are 

summarized in Tables 4 and 5 above. 

2. Has the state documented 

maintenance of the ozone standard in 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area? 

Ohio has demonstrated maintenance 

of the 2008 ozone standard through 

2030 by assuring that current and future 

emissions of VOC and NOX for the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area remain at or 

below attainment year emission levels. 

A maintenance demonstration need not 

be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 

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

v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See 

also 66 FR 53094, 53099–53100 

(October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430– 

25432 (May 12, 2003). 

Ohio is using emissions inventories 

for the years 2020 and 2030 to 

demonstrate maintenance. 2030 is more 

than 10 years after the expected 

effective date of the redesignation to 

attainment and 2020 was selected to 

demonstrate that emissions are not 

expected to spike in the interim 

between the attainment year and the 

final maintenance year. The emissions 

inventories were developed as described 

below. 

To develop the 2020 and 2030 

inventories, the state collected data from 

the Ozone NAAQS Emissions Modeling 

platform (2011v6.1) inventories for 

years 2011, 2018 and 2025. 2020 

emissions for area, nonroad mobile, 

AIR, and point source sectors were 

derived by interpolating between 2018 

and 2025. 2030 emissions for area, 

nonroad mobile, AIR, and point source 

sectors were derived using the TREND 

function in Excel. If the trend function 

resulted in a negative value the 

emissions were assumed not to change. 

Summer day inventories were derived 

for these sectors using the methodology 

described in section IV.C.2. above. 

Finally, onroad mobile source emissions 

were developed in conjunction with 

OKI using the same methodology 

described in section IV.C.2. above for 

the 2011 inventory. Emissions data are 

shown in Tables 8 through 13 below. 

TABLE 8—CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA NOX EMISSIONS FOR INTERIM MAINTENANCE YEAR 2020 (TPSD) 

County Point AIR Nonroad Area Onroad Total 

Ohio: 

Butler ................................................. 9.77 0.02 2.03 4.78 4.74 21.34 

Clermont ........................................... 31.32 0.00 1.11 1.14 2.91 36.48 

Clinton ............................................... 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.52 1.86 3.02 

Hamilton ............................................ 18.73 0.02 4.06 10.08 13.05 45.94 

Warren .............................................. 1.54 0.00 1.50 1.66 3.81 8.51 

Indiana: 

Dearborn ........................................... 2.96 0.00 0.30 0.48 0.40 4.14 

Kentucky: 

Boone ................................................ 7.86 2.29 0.60 0.43 2.41 13.59 

Campbell ........................................... 0.17 0.00 0.23 0.49 1.50 2.39 

Kenton ............................................... 0.01 0.00 0.43 1.02 2.28 3.74 

Ohio Totals ................................ 61.36 0.04 9.34 18.18 26.37 115.29 

Area Totals ......................... 72.36 2.33 10.90 20.60 32.96 139.15 

TABLE 9—CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA VOC EMISSIONS FOR INTERIM MAINTENANCE YEAR 2020 (TPSD) 

County Point AIR Nonroad Area Onroad Total 

Ohio: 

Butler ................................................. 2.98 0.03 2.23 9.38 4.79 19.41 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 66613 

TABLE 9—CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA VOC EMISSIONS FOR INTERIM MAINTENANCE YEAR 2020 (TPSD)—Continued 

County Point AIR Nonroad Area Onroad Total 

Clermont ........................................... 0.51 0.01 1.43 5.28 2.94 10.17 

Clinton ............................................... 0.00 0.01 0.51 2.54 0.93 3.99 

Hamilton ............................................ 2.54 0.04 5.42 21.30 13.18 42.48 

Warren .............................................. 0.60 0.01 1.54 5.59 3.85 11.59 

Indiana: 

Dearborn ........................................... 4.06 0.00 0.29 1.77 0.40 6.52 

Kentucky: 

Boone ................................................ 1.73 0.45 1.03 2.41 1.38 7.00 

Campbell ........................................... 0.22 0.00 0.25 1.22 0.86 2.55 

Kenton ............................................... 0.49 0.00 0.47 2.31 1.30 4.57 

Ohio Totals ................................ 6.63 0.10 11.13 44.09 25.69 87.64 

Area Totals ......................... 13.13 0.55 13.17 51.80 29.63 108.28 

TABLE 10—CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA NOX EMISSIONS FOR MAINTENANCE YEAR 2030 (TPSD) 

County Point AIR Nonroad Area Onroad Total 

Ohio: 

Butler ................................................. 9.83 0.00 1.16 4.79 2.44 18.22 

Clermont ........................................... 31.32 0.00 0.63 1.15 1.50 34.60 

Clinton ............................................... 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.53 1.28 2.10 

Hamilton ............................................ 18.75 0.00 2.59 10.10 6.71 38.15 

Warren .............................................. 1.54 0.00 0.78 1.67 1.96 5.95 

Indiana: 

Dearborn ........................................... 2.96 0.00 0.18 0.48 0.21 3.83 

Kentucky: 

Boone ................................................ 8.51 0.29 0.38 0.44 1.05 10.67 

Campbell ........................................... 0.17 0.00 0.15 0.49 0.65 1.46 

Kenton ............................................... 0.01 0.00 0.27 1.02 0.99 2.29 

Ohio Totals ................................ 61.44 0.00 5.45 18.24 13.89 99.02 

Area Totals ......................... 73.09 0.29 6.43 20.67 16.79 117.27 

TABLE 11—CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA VOC EMISSIONS FOR MAINTENANCE YEAR 2030 (TPSD) 

County Point AIR Nonroad Area Onroad Total 

Ohio: 

Butler ................................................. 3.00 0.01 2.43 9.31 2.88 17.63 

Clermont ........................................... 0.64 0.00 1.46 5.20 1.77 9.07 

Clinton ............................................... 0.01 0.00 0.42 2.61 0.71 3.75 

Hamilton ............................................ 2.62 0.00 5.87 21.01 7.92 37.42 

Warren .............................................. 0.58 0.00 1.51 5.52 2.32 9.93 

Indiana: 

Dearborn ........................................... 4.06 0.00 0.27 1.85 0.24 6.42 

Kentucky: 

Boone ................................................ 1.73 0.06 0.92 2.36 0.77 5.84 

Campbell ........................................... 0.21 0.00 0.22 1.19 0.48 2.10 

Kenton ............................................... 0.47 0.00 0.50 2.25 0.73 3.95 

Ohio Totals ................................ 6.85 0.01 11.69 43.65 15.60 77.80 

Area Totals ......................... 13.32 0.07 13.60 51.30 17.82 96.11 

TABLE 12—CHANGE IN NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS BETWEEN 2014 AND 2030 FOR THE OHIO PORTION OF THE

CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA (TPSD) 

NOX VOC 

2014 2020 2030 

Net Change 

(2014– 

2030) 

2014 2020 2030 

Net Change 

(2014– 

2030) 

Point ................................. 76.51 61.36 61.44 ¥15.07 6.84 6.63 6.85 0.01 

AIR ................................... 0.04 0.04 0.00 ¥0.04 0.10 0.10 0.01 ¥0.09 

Nonroad ........................... 15.47 9.34 5.45 ¥10.02 13.52 11.13 11.69 ¥1.83 

Area .................................. 18.18 18.18 18.24 0.06 44.70 44.09 43.65 ¥1.05 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
66614 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 12—CHANGE IN NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS BETWEEN 2014 AND 2030 FOR THE OHIO PORTION OF THE

CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA (TPSD)—Continued 

NOX VOC 

2014 2020 2030 

Net Change 

(2014– 

2030) 

2014 2020 2030 

Net Change 

(2014– 

2030) 

Onroad ............................. 49.29 26.37 13.89 ¥35.40 40.76 25.69 15.60 ¥25.16 

Total .......................... 159.49 115.29 99.02 ¥60.47 105.92 87.64 77.80 ¥28.12 

TABLE 13—CHANGE IN NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS BETWEEN 2014 AND 2030 FOR THE ENTIRE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON

AREA (TPSD) 

NOX VOC 

2014 2020 2030 

Net Change 

(2014– 

2030) 

2014 2020 2030 

Net Change 

(2014– 

2030) 

Point ................................. 95.80 72.36 73.09 ¥22.71 14.84 13.13 13.32 ¥1.52 

AIR ................................... 2.11 2.33 0.29 ¥1.82 0.52 0.55 0.07 ¥0.45 

Nonroad ........................... 17.75 10.90 6.43 ¥11.32 16.07 13.17 13.60 ¥2.47 

Area .................................. 20.59 20.60 20.67 0.08 52.70 51.80 51.30 ¥1.40 

Onroad ............................. 64.07 32.96 16.79 ¥47.28 47.90 29.63 17.82 ¥30.08 

Total .......................... 200.32 139.15 117.27 ¥83.05 132.03 108.28 96.11 ¥35.92 

In summary, the maintenance 

demonstration for the CincinnatiHamilton area shows maintenance of 

the 2008 ozone standard by providing 

emissions information to support the 

demonstration that future emissions of 

NOX and VOC will remain at or below 

2014 emission levels when taking into 

account both future source growth and 

implementation of future controls. Table 

13 shows NOX and VOC emissions in 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area are 

projected to decrease by 83.05 TPSD 

and 35.92 TPSD, respectively, between 

2014 and 2030. As shown in Table 12, 

NOX and VOC emissions in the Ohio 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

alone are projected to decrease by 60.47 

TPSD and 28.12 TPSD, respectively, 

between 2014 and 2030. 

3. Continued Air Quality Monitoring 

Ohio EPA has committed to continue 

to operate the ozone monitors listed in 

Table 1 above. Ohio EPA has committed 

to consult with EPA prior to making 

changes to the existing monitoring 

network should changes become 

necessary in the future. Ohio remains 

obligated to meet monitoring 

requirements and continue to quality 

assure monitoring data in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 58, and to enter all 

data into the Air Quality System (AQS) 

in accordance with Federal guidelines. 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

The State of Ohio, has the legal 

authority to enforce and implement the 

requirements of the maintenance plan 

for the Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area. This includes the 

authority to adopt, implement, and 

enforce any subsequent emission 

control measures determined to be 

necessary to correct future ozone 

attainment problems. 

Verification of continued attainment 

is accomplished through operation of 

the ambient ozone monitoring network 

and the periodic update of the area’s 

emissions inventory. Ohio EPA will 

continue to operate the current ozone 

monitors located in the Ohio portion of 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. There are 

no plans to discontinue operation, 

relocate, or otherwise change the 

existing ozone monitoring network 

other than through revisions in the 

network approved by the EPA. 

In addition, to track future levels of 

emissions, Ohio EPA will continue to 

develop and submit to EPA updated 

emission inventories for all source 

categories at least once every three 

years, consistent with the requirements 

of 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, and in 40 

CFR 51.122. The Consolidated 

Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) was 

promulgated by EPA on June 10, 2002 

(67 FR 39602). The CERR was replaced 

by the Annual Emissions Reporting 

Requirements (AERR) on December 17, 

2008 (73 FR 76539). The most recent 

triennial inventory for Ohio was 

compiled for 2014. Point source 

facilities covered by Ohio’s emission 

statement rule, Ohio Administrative 

Code Chapter 3745–24, will continue to 

submit VOC and NOX emissions on an 

annual basis. 

5. What is the contingency plan for the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area? 

Section 175A of the CAA requires that 

the state must adopt a maintenance 

plan, as a SIP revision, that includes 

such contingency measures as EPA 

deems necessary to assure that the state 

will promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation 

of the area to attainment of the NAAQS. 

The maintenance plan must identify: 

The contingency measures to be 

considered and, if needed for 

maintenance, adopted and 

implemented; a schedule and procedure 

for adoption and implementation; 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 

considered, adopted, and implemented. 

The maintenance plan must include a 

commitment that the state will 

implement all measures with respect to 

the control of the pollutant that were 

contained in the SIP before 

redesignation of the area to attainment 

in accordance with section 175A(d) of 

the CAA. 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, Ohio has adopted a contingency 

plan for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to 

address possible future ozone air quality 

problems. The contingency plan 

adopted by Ohio has two levels of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 66615 

response, a warning level response and 

an action level response. 

In Ohio’s plan, a warning level 

response will be triggered when an 

annual fourth high monitored value of 

0.079 ppm or higher is monitored 

within the maintenance area. A warning 

level response will consist of Ohio EPA 

conducting a study to determine 

whether the ozone value indicates a 

trend toward higher ozone values or 

whether emissions appear to be 

increasing. The studies will evaluate 

whether the trend, if any, is likely to 

continue and, if so, the control measures 

necessary to reverse the trend. The 

studies will consider ease and timing of 

implementation as well as economic 

and social impacts. Implementation of 

necessary controls in response to a 

warning level response trigger will take 

place within 12 months from the 

conclusion of the most recent ozone 

season. 

In Ohio’s plan, an action level 

response is triggered when a two-year 

average fourth high value of 0.076 ppm 

or greater is monitored within the 

maintenance area. A violation of the 

standard within the maintenance area 

also triggers an action level response. 

When an action level response is 

triggered, Ohio EPA, in conjunction 

with the metropolitan planning 

organization or regional council of 

governments, will determine what 

additional control measures are needed 

to assure future attainment of the ozone 

standard. Control measures selected will 

be adopted and implemented within 18 

months from the close of the ozone 

season that prompted the action level. 

Ohio EPA may also consider if 

significant new regulations not 

currently included as part of the 

maintenance provisions will be 

implemented in a timely manner and 

would thus constitute an adequate 

contingency measure response. 

Ohio EPA included the following list 

of potential contingency measures in its 

maintenance plan: 

1. Implementation of an enhanced I/M 

program (E-Check) in Butler, Clermont, 

Hamilton and Warren Counties. 

2. Tighten or adopt VOC RACT on existing 

sources covered by EPA Control Technique 

Guidelines issued after the 1990 CAA. 

3. Apply VOC RACT to smaller existing 

sources. 

4. One or more transportation control 

measures sufficient to achieve at least half a 

percent reduction in actual area wide VOC 

emissions. Transportation measures will be 

selected from the following, based upon the 

factors listed above after consultation with 

affected local governments: 

a. Trip reduction programs, including, but 

not limited to, employer-based transportation 

management plans, area wide rideshare 

programs, work schedule changes, and 

telecommuting; 

b. traffic flow and transit improvements; 

and 

c. other new or innovative transportation 

measures not yet in widespread use that 

affected local governments deem appropriate. 

5. Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit 

programs for fleet vehicle operations. 

6. Require VOC or NOX emission offsets for 

new and modified major sources. 

7. Increase the ratio of emission offsets 

required for new sources. 

8. Require VOC or NOX controls on new 

minor sources (less than 100 tons). 

9. Adopt NOX RACT for existing 

combustion sources. 

EPA has concluded that the 

maintenance plan adequately addresses 

the five basic components of a 

maintenance plan: Attainment 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring network, verification of 

continued attainment, and a 

contingency plan. In addition, as 

required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, 

Ohio EPA has committed to submit to 

EPA an updated ozone maintenance 

plan eight years after redesignation of 

the Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area to cover an additional ten 

years beyond the initial 10 year 

maintenance period. Thus, EPA 

proposes to find that the maintenance 

plan SIP revision submitted by Ohio 

EPA for the Ohio portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area meets the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA. 

V. Has the state adopted approvable 

motor vehicle emission budgets? 

A. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation plans, programs, or 

projects that receive Federal funding or 

support, such as the construction of new 

highways, must ‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be 

consistent with) the SIP. Conformity to 

the SIP means that transportation 

activities will not cause new air quality 

violations, worsen existing air quality 

problems, or delay timely attainment of 

the NAAQS or interim air quality 

milestones. Regulations at 40 CFR part 

93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and 

procedures for demonstrating and 

assuring conformity of transportation 

activities to a SIP. Transportation 

conformity is a requirement for 

nonattainment and maintenance areas. 

Maintenance areas are areas that were 

previously nonattainment for a 

particular NAAQS, but that have been 

redesignated to attainment with an 

approved maintenance plan for the 

NAAQS. 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIPs for nonattainment areas and 

maintenance plans for areas seeking 

redesignations to attainment of the 

ozone standard and maintenance areas. 

See the SIP requirements for the 2008 

ozone standard in EPA’s March 6, 2015 

implementation rule (80 FR 12264). 

These control strategy SIPs (including 

reasonable further progress plans and 

attainment plans) and maintenance 

plans must include MVEBs for criteria 

pollutants, including ozone, and their 

precursor pollutants (VOC and NOX for 

ozone) to address pollution from onroad 

transportation sources. The MVEBs are 

the portion of the total allowable 

emissions that are allocated to highway 

and transit vehicle use that, together 

with emissions from other sources in 

the area, will provide for attainment or 

maintenance. See 40 CFR 93.101. 

Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an 

area seeking a redesignation to 

attainment must be established, at 

minimum, for the last year of the 

maintenance plan. A state may adopt 

MVEBs for other years as well. The 

MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions 

from an area’s planned transportation 

system. The MVEB concept is further 

explained in the preamble to the 

November 24, 1993, Transportation 

Conformity Rule (58 FR 62188). The 

preamble also describes how to 

establish the MVEB in the SIP and how 

to revise the MVEB, if needed, 

subsequent to initially establishing a 

MVEB in the SIP. 

B. What is the status of EPA’s adequacy 

determination for the proposed VOC 

and NOX MVEBs for the CincinnatiHamilton area? 

Whan reviewing submitted control 

strategy SIPs or maintenance plans 

containing MVEBs, EPA must 

affirmatively find that the MVEBs 

contained therein are adequate for use 

in determining transportation 

conformity. Once EPA affirmatively 

finds that the submitted MVEBs are 

adequate for transportation purposes, 

the MVEBs must be used by state and 

Federal agencies in determining 

whether proposed transportation 

projects conform to the SIP as required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. 

EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining adequacy of a MVEB are set 

out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process 

for determining adequacy consists of 

three basic steps: Public notification of 

a SIP submission; provision for a public 

comment period; and EPA’s adequacy 

determination. This process for 

determining the adequacy of submitted 

MVEBs for transportation conformity 

purposes was initially outlined in EPA’s 

May 14, 1999 guidance, ‘‘Conformity 

Guidance on Implementation of March 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
66616 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.’’ 

EPA adopted regulations to codify the 

adequacy process in the Transportation 

Conformity Rule Amendments for the 

‘‘New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards and 

Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing 

Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments—Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’ 

on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). 

Additional information on the adequacy 

process for transportation conformity 

purposes is available in the proposed 

rule titled, ‘‘Transportation Conformity 

Rule Amendments: Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Changes,’’ 

68 FR 38974, 38984 (June 30, 2003). 

As discussed earlier, Ohio’s 

maintenance plan includes NOX and 

VOC MVEBs for the CincinnatiHamilton area for 2030 and 2020, the 

last year of the maintenance period and 

an interim year. EPA reviewed the VOC 

and NOX MVEBs through the adequacy 

process. Ohio’s April 21, 2016, 

maintenance plan SIP submission, 

including the VOC and NOX MVEBs for 

the Ohio and Indiana portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area was open for 

public comment on EPA’s adequacy 

Web site on July 22, 2016, found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. 

The EPA public comment period on 

adequacy of the 2020 and 2030 MVEBs 

for the Ohio and Indiana portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area closed on 

August 22, 2016. No comments on the 

submittal were received during the 

adequacy comment period. The 

submitted maintenance plan, which 

included the MVEBs, was endorsed by 

the Governor (or his or her designee) 

and was subject to a state public 

hearing. The MVEBS were developed as 

part of an interagency consultation 

process which includes Federal, state, 

and local agencies. The MVEBS were 

clearly identified and precisely 

quantified. These MVEBs, when 

considered together with all other 

emissions sources, are consistent with 

maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

TABLE 14—MVEBS FOR THE OHIO AND INDIANA PORTION OF THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA, TPSD 

Attainment 

year 2014 

onroad 

emissions 

2020 

Estimated 

onroad 

emissions 

2020 Mobile 

safety margin 

allocation 

2020 MVEBs 

2030 

Estimated 

onroad 

emissions 

2030 Mobile 

safety margin 

allocation 

2030 MVEBs 

VOC ............................. 41.40 26.09 3.91 30.00 15.84 2.38 18.22 

NOX .............................. 50.03 26.77 4.02 30.79 14.10 2.12 16.22 

As shown in Table 14, the 2020 and 

2030 MVEBs exceed the estimated 2020 

and 2030 onroad sector emissions. In an 

effort to accommodate future variations 

in travel demand models and vehicle 

miles traveled forecast, Ohio EPA 

allocated a portion of the safety margin 

(described further below) to the mobile 

sector. Ohio has demonstrated that the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area can maintain 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS with mobile 

source emissions in the Ohio and 

Indiana portion of the area of 30.00 

TPSD and 18.22 TPSD of VOC and 26.77 

TPSD and 16.22 TPSD of NOX in 2020 

and 2030, respectively, since despite 

partial allocation of the safety margin, 

emissions will remain under attainment 

year emission levels. EPA, has found 

adequate and is proposing to approve 

the MVEBs for use to determine 

transportation conformity in the Ohio 

and Indiana portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area, because EPA has 

determined that the area can maintain 

attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

for the relevant maintenance period 

with mobile source emissions at the 

levels of the MVEBs. 

C. What is a safety margin? 

A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference 

between the attainment level of 

emissions (from all sources) and the 

projected level of emissions (from all 

sources) in the maintenance plan. As 

noted in Table 12, the emissions in the 

Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area are projected to have safety margins 

of 60.47 TPSD for NOX and 28.12 TPSD 

for VOC in 2030 (the difference between 

the attainment year, 2014, emissions 

and the projected 2030 emissions for all 

sources in the Ohio portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area). Similarly, 

there is a safety margin of 44.20 TPSD 

for NOX and 18.28 TPSD for VOC in 

2020. Even if emissions reached the full 

level of the safety margin, the counties 

would still demonstrate maintenance 

since emission levels would equal those 

in the attainment year. 

As shown in Table 14 above, Ohio is 

allocating a portion of that safety margin 

to the mobile source sector. Specifically, 

in 2020, Ohio is allocating 3.91 TPSD 

and 4.02 TPSD of the VOC and NOX

safety margins, respectively. In 2030, 

Ohio is allocating 2.38 TPSD and 2.12 

TPSD of the VOC and NOX safety 

margins, respectively. Ohio EPA is not 

requesting allocation to the MVEBs of 

the entire available safety margins 

reflected in the demonstration of 

maintenance. In fact, the amount 

allocated to the MVEBs represents only 

a small portion of the 2020 and 2030 

safety margins. Therefore, even though 

the State is requesting MVEBs that 

exceed the projected onroad mobile 

source emissions for 2020 and 2030 

contained in the demonstration of 

maintenance, the increase in onroad 

mobile source emissions that can be 

considered for transportation 

conformity purposes is well within the 

safety margins of the ozone maintenance 

demonstration. Further, once allocated 

to mobile sources, these safety margins 

will not be available for use by other 

sources. 

VI. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton nonattainment 

is attaining the 2008 ozone standard, 

based on quality-assured and certified 

monitoring data for 2013–2015 and that 

the Ohio portion of this area has met the 

requirements for redesignation under 

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

thus proposing to approve Ohio EPA’s 

request to change the legal designation 

of the Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 2008 ozone standard. 

EPA is also proposing to approve, as a 

revision to the Ohio SIP, the state’s 

maintenance plan for the area. The 

maintenance plan is designed to keep 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area in 

attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

through 2030. Finally, EPA finds 

adequate and is proposing to approve 

the newly-established 2020 and 2030 

MVEBs for the Indiana and Ohio portion 

of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 66617 

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 

CAA 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, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is 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.); 

• 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); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is 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 

• Does 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, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because 

redesignation is an action that affects 

the status of a geographical area and 

does not impose any new regulatory 

requirements on tribes, impact any 

existing sources of air pollution on 

tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance 

of ozone national ambient air quality 

standards in tribal lands. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 19, 2016. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2016–23301 Filed 9–27–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0277; FRL–9953–09– 

Region 5] 

Reclassification of the Sheboygan, 

Wisconsin Area To Moderate 

Nonattainment for the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to determine 

that the Sheboygan, Wisconsin area 

(Sheboygan County) has failed to attain 

the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) by the 

applicable attainment date of July 20, 

2016, and that this area is not eligible 

for an extension of the attainment date. 

EPA is proposing to reclassify this area 

as ‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. Once reclassified 

as moderate, the State of Wisconsin 

must submit State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions that meet the statutory 

and regulatory requirements that apply 

to areas classified as moderate 

nonattainment for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. EPA is proposing to require 

submission of the necessary moderate 

area SIP revisions as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than January 1, 

2017. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 28, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2016–0277 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Scientist, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–1767, 

dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

I. Background 

II. How does EPA determine whether an area 

has attained the 2008 ozone standard? 

III. What is EPA proposing and what is the 

rationale? 

IV. Summary of Proposed Actions 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On April 30, 2012, the Sheboygan 

area was designated as nonattainment 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and was 

classified as marginal, effective July 20, 

2012 (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012). On 

March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264), in the 

implementation rule for the 2008 ozone 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS