Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 6035 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not affect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

10. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

will not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under Executive Order 

13211, Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves 

establishing regulations for a safety 

zone. This rule is categorically excluded 

from further review under paragraph 

34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant 

Instruction. An environmental analysis 

checklist supporting this determination 

and a Categorical Exclusion 

Determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard is amending 

33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0171.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T17–1088 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T17–1088 Safety Zone; MODU 

KULLUK, Ocean Bay, Sitkalidak Island and 

Shelikof Strait, Alaska. 

(a) Location. The following areas are 

safety zones: All navigable waters, from 

the surface to the seabed, within one 

nautical mile of the MODU KULLUK, a 

large ocean-going drill vessel, while it is 

aground in the vicinity of Ocean Bay 

and Partition Cove, Sitkalidak Island, 

Alaska, in approximate position 57 

degrees, 05.4′ N; 153 degrees, 06.1′ W 

and all navigable waters, from surface to 

seabed, within 500 yards of the MODU 

KULLUK, once it is floating free from 

the seabed including times that it is 

under tow and at anchor in the vicinity 

of Kodiak Island and Kiliuda Bay, 

Alaska. 

(b) Effective date. The safety zone is 

effective beginning January 6, 2013, and 

terminates at 11:59 p.m. on March 31, 

2013. Enforcement of this safety zone 

may end earlier if ordered by the 

Captain of the Port, Western Alaska. 

(c) Regulations. The general 

regulations governing safety zones 

contained in § 165.23 apply to all 

vessels operating within the areas 

described in paragraph (a). In addition 

to the general regulations, the following 

provisions apply to this safety zone: 

(1) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Captain of the Port (COTP) or 

designated on-scene representative, 

consisting of commissioned, warrant, 

and petty officers of the Coast Guard. 

Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast 

Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing 

light or other means, the operator of a 

vessel shall proceed as directed by the 

COTP’s designated on-scene 

representative. 

(2) Entry into the safety zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

COTP or his designated on-scene 

representative. Any persons desiring to 

enter the safety zone must contact the 

designated on-scene representative on 

VHF channel 16 (156.800 MHz) and 

receive permission prior to entering. 

(3) If permission is granted to transit 

within the safety zone, all persons and 

vessels must comply with the 

instructions of the designated on-scene 

representative. 

(4) The COTP will notify the maritime 

and general public by marine 

information broadcast during the period 

of time that the safety zones are in force 

including notification that the MODU 

KULLUK is free from the ocean bottom 

and the subsequent reduction in size of 

the safety zone by providing notice in 

accordance with 33 CFR 165.7. 

(d) Penalties. Persons and vessels 

violating this rule are subject to the 

penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 

50 U.S.C. 192. 

Dated: January 6, 2013. 

P. Mehler, III, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Western Alaska. 

[FR Doc. 2013–01794 Filed 1–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0648; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0834; FRL–9773–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio 

and Indiana; Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH; 

Ohio and Indiana 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan Revisions to 

Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the request 

by Ohio and Indiana to revise the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance air quality State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) to replace 

the previously approved motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (budgets) with 

budgets developed using EPA’s Motor 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
6036 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 

emissions model. The Ohio and Indiana 

portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

include the Ohio Counties of Butler, 

Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton and 

Warren, Ohio, and Lawrenceburg 

Township in Dearborn County, Indiana. 

Ohio submitted the SIP revision request 

to EPA on June 29, 2012. Indiana 

submitted the SIP revision request for 

parallel processing in a letter dated 

October 12, 2012, and followed up with 

a final submittal on December 11, 2012. 

Ohio and Indiana have submitted 

identical budgets which cover the Ohio 

and Indiana portions of the CincinnatiHamilton 1997 ozone maintenance area. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective April 1, 2013, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by February 

28, 2013. If adverse comments are 

received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0648 for Ohio and EPA– 

R05–OAR–2012–0834 for Indiana, by 

one of the following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012– 

0648 and EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0834. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Anthony 

Maietta, Environmental Protection 

Specialist, at (312) 353–8777 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony Maietta, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Control Strategies 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777, 

maietta.anthony@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 is EPA approving? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

a. SIP Budgets and Transportation 

Conformity 

b. Prior Approval of Budgets 

c. The MOVES Emissions Model and 

Regional Transportation Conformity 

Grace Period 

d. Submission of New Budgets Based on 

MOVES2010a 

III. What are the criteria for approval? 

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

submittal? 

a. The Revised Inventories 

b. Approvability of the MOVES2010abased Budgets 

c. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-based 

Budgets 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is EPA approving? 

EPA is approving new MOVES2010abased budgets for the Ohio and Indiana 

portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, 

Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana, 1997 8-hour 

ozone maintenance area. The Ohio and 

Indiana portions of the CincinnatiHamilton area were redesignated to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard effective May 11, 2010 (75 FR 

26118), and MOBILE6.2-based budgets 

were approved in that action. The newly 

submitted MOVES2010a-based budgets 

will replace the existing MOBILE6.2- 

based budgets in the Ohio and Indiana 

1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plans 

and must then be used in future 

transportation conformity analyses for 

the area. At that time, the previously 

approved MOBILE6.2 based budgets 

would no longer be applicable for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

The Ohio and Indiana portions of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance area must use the 

MOVES2010a-based budgets starting on 

the effective date of this rulemaking. See 

the official release of the MOVES2010 

emissions model (75 FR 9411–9414, 

March 2, 2010) for background, and 

section II.(c) below for details. 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

a. SIP Budgets and Transportation 

Conformity 

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), states 

are required to submit, at various times, 

control strategy SIP revisions and 

maintenance plans for nonattainment 

and maintenance areas for a given 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). These emission control 

strategy SIP revisions (e.g., reasonable 

further progress (RFP) and attainment 

demonstration SIP revisions) and 

maintenance plans include budgets of 

on-road mobile source emissions for 

criteria pollutants and/or their 

precursors to address pollution from 

cars, trucks, and other on-road vehicles. 

These mobile source SIP budgets are the 

portions of the total emissions that are 

allocated to on-road vehicle use that, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 6037 

1Upon the release of MOVES2010, EPA 

established a two-year grace period before MOVES 

is required to be used for regional conformity 

analyses (75 FR 9411, March 2, 2010). EPA 

subsequently promulgated a final rule on February 

27, 2012 to provide an additional year before 

MOVES is required for these analyses (77 FR 

11394). In this case the grace period ends on March 

2, 2013. 

together with emissions from other 

sources in the area, will provide for 

attainment or maintenance if they are 

not exceeded. The budget serves as a 

ceiling on emissions from an area’s 

planned transportation system. For 

more information about budgets, see the 

preamble to the November 24, 1993, 

transportation conformity rule (58 FR 

62188). 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, 

transportation plans, Transportation 

Improvement Programs (TIPs), and 

transportation projects must ‘‘conform’’ 

to (i.e., be consistent with) the SIP 

before they can be adopted or approved. 

Conformity to the SIP means that 

transportation activities will not cause 

new air quality violations, worsen 

existing air quality violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS or 

delay an interim milestone. The 

transportation conformity regulations 

can be found at 40 CFR part 51 subpart 

T, and part 93. 

In general, before budgets can be used 

in conformity determinations, EPA must 

affirmatively find the budgets adequate. 

However, budgets that are replacing 

approved budgets must be found 

adequate and approved before budgets 

can replace older budgets. If the 

submitted SIP budgets are meant to 

replace budgets for the same purpose, as 

is the case with Ohio’s and Indiana’s 

MOVES2010a 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan budgets, EPA must 

approve the revised SIP and budgets, 

and must affirm that they are adequate 

at the same time. Once EPA approves 

revised budgets into the SIP, they must 

be used by state and Federal agencies in 

determining whether transportation 

activities conform to the SIP as required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA’s 

substantive criteria for determining the 

adequacy of budgets are set out in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

b. Prior Approval of Budgets 

EPA had previously approved budgets 

for the Ohio and Indiana portions of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton, 8-hour ozone 

maintenance area for volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) for the year 2015 and 2020 on 

May 11, 2010 (75 FR 26118). These 

budgets were based on EPA’s 

MOBILE6.2 emissions model. The ozone 

maintenance plan established 2015 and 

2020 budgets for the Ohio and Indiana 

portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, 

area. The 2015 approved budgets of 

31.73 tons per day (tpd) for VOCs and 

49.00 tpd for NOX and the 2020 budgets 

of 28.82 tpd VOCs and 34.39 tpd NOX

were approved in the May 11, 2010, 

rulemaking. These budgets 

demonstrated a reduction in emissions 

from the monitored attainment year and 

included a margin of safety. 

c. The MOVES Emissions Model and 

Regional Transportation Conformity 

Grace Period 

The MOVES model is EPA’s state of 

the art tool for estimating highway 

emissions. The model is based on 

analyses of millions of emission test 

results and considerable advances in the 

agency’s understanding of vehicle 

emissions. MOVES incorporates the 

latest emissions data, more 

sophisticated calculation algorithms, 

increased user flexibility, new software 

design, and significant new capabilities 

relative to those reflected in 

MOBILE6.2. 

EPA announced the release of 

MOVES2010 in March 2010 (75 FR 

9411). EPA subsequently released two 

minor model revisions: MOVES2010a in 

September 2010 and MOVES2010b in 

April 2012. Both of these minor 

revisions enhance model performance 

and do not significantly affect the 

criteria pollutant emissions results from 

MOVES2010. MOVES will be required 

for new regional emissions analyses for 

transportation conformity 

determinations (‘‘regional conformity 

analyses’’) outside of California that 

begin after March 2, 2013, or when EPA 

approves MOVES-based budgets, 

whichever comes first.1 The MOVES 

grace period for regional conformity 

analyses applies to both the use of 

MOVES2010 and approved minor 

revisions (e.g., MOVES2010a and 

MOVES2010b). For more information, 

see EPA’s ‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use 

of MOVES2010 and Subsequent Minor 

Model Revisions for State 

Implementation Plan Development, 

Transportation Conformity, and Other 

Purposes’’ (April 2012), available online 

at: www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ 

transconf/policy.htm#models. 

EPA has encouraged areas to examine 

how MOVES would affect future 

transportation plan and TIP conformity 

determinations so, if necessary, SIPs 

and budgets could be revised with 

MOVES or transportation plans and 

TIPs could be revised (as appropriate) 

prior to the end of the regional 

transportation conformity grace period. 

EPA has also encouraged state and local 

air agencies to consider how the release 

of MOVES would affect analyses 

supporting SIP submissions under 

development (77 FR 9411, March 2, 

2010 and 77 FR 11394, February 27, 

2012). 

The Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana Regional 

Council of Governments (OKI), which is 

the Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO) for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, 

has used MOVES2010a emission rates 

with the transportation network 

information to estimate emissions in the 

years of the transportation plan and also 

for the SIP. The budgets have been 

revised using the latest planning 

assumptions including population and 

employment updates. In addition, 

newer vehicle registration data has been 

used to update the age distribution of 

the vehicle fleet. Since MOVES2010 (or 

a minor model revision) will be required 

for conformity analyses after the grace 

period ends, OKI has concluded that 

updating the budgets with 

MOVES2010a will prepare the area for 

the transition to using MOVES for 

conformity analyses and 

determinations. The interagency 

consultation group has had extensive 

consultation on the requirements and 

need for new budgets. 

d. Submission of New Budgets Based on 

MOVES2010a 

On June 29, 2012, Ohio submitted in 

final replacement budgets based on 

MOVES2010a that cover the Ohio 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. 

Ohio received no comments during the 

public review and comment period. On 

October 12, 2012, Indiana submitted for 

parallel processing replacement budgets 

based on MOVES2010a that cover the 

Indiana portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area. Indiana received no 

comments during their subsequent 

public review and comment period. 

Indiana submitted the final SIP revision 

request to EPA on December 11, 2012. 

The MOVES2010a-based budgets will 

replace the prior approved MOBILE6.2- 

based budgets and are for the same years 

and pollutants/precursors. The new 

MOVES2010a-based budgets are for the 

years 2015 and 2020 for both VOCs and 

NOX and are detailed in Table 3 of this 

notice. Ohio and Indiana have also 

provided total emissions including 

mobile emissions based on 

MOVES2010a, for the attainment year of 

2005, the 2015 budget year, and the 

2020 maintenance year. The safety 

margin is defined as the reduction in 

emissions from the base year (in this 

case the 2005 attainment year) to the 

final year of the maintenance plan (in 

this case the 2020 year). The total 

emissions include point, area, non-road 

mobile and on-road mobile sources. The 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
6038 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

available safety margin is shown in 

Table 1. 

TABLE 1—TABLE OF TOTAL EMISSIONS

WITH MOVES2010A MOBILE EMISSIONS CINCINNATI-HAMILTON

[Tons per summer day] 

Year 2005 2015 2020 Safety 

Margin 

VOC .. 237.77 174.59 162.47 65.39 

NOX .. 389.99 309.41 289.20 38.10 

OKI has added only a small portion of 

the overall safety margin available for 

NOX and VOCs to the budgets for 2015 

and 2020. The submittal demonstrates 

how all emissions decline from the 

attainment year of 2005. In 2005, the 

total estimated NOX emissions from all 

sources (including mobile, point, area, 

and non-road sources) is 389.99 tpd and 

the total VOC emissions, for the 2005 

attainment year, from all sources is 

237.77 tpd. The 2020 estimated 

emissions for total NOX from all sources 

is 289.20 tpd and the total VOC 

emissions from all sources is 162.47 tpd. 

This reduction in emissions 

demonstrates that the area will continue 

below the attainment level of emissions 

and maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. The mobile source emissions, 

when included with point, area, and 

non-road sources continue to 

demonstrate maintenance of the 

attainment level of emissions in the 

Ohio and Indiana portions of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area. 

No additional control measures were 

needed to maintain the 1997 ozone 

standard in the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area. An appropriate safety margin for 

NOX and VOCs was decided by the 

interagency consultation group (the 

interagency consultation group as 

required by the state conformity 

agreement consists of representatives 

from the Federal Highway 

Administration, Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency (OEPA), Ohio 

Department of Transportation, Indiana 

Department of Transportation, Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) and EPA). The 

submitted budgets for the Ohio and 

Indiana portions of the CincinnatiHamilton area are 94.25 tpd for NOX

and 56.06 tpd for VOCs in the year 

2015; and 73.13 tpd for NOX and 42.81 

tpd for VOCs in the year 2020 (see Table 

3). These budgets will continue to keep 

emissions in the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area below the calculated attainment 

year of emissions. 

III. What are the criteria for approval? 

EPA requires that revisions to existing 

SIPs and budgets continue to meet 

applicable requirements (e.g., RFP, 

attainment, or maintenance). States that 

revise their existing SIPs to include 

MOVES budgets must therefore show 

that the SIP continues to meet 

applicable requirements with the new 

level of motor vehicle emissions 

contained in the budgets. The SIP must 

also meet any applicable SIP 

requirements under CAA section 110. 

In addition, the transportation 

conformity rule (at 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4)(iv)) requires that ‘‘the 

budgets, when considered together with 

all other emissions sources, is consistent 

with applicable requirements for RFP, 

attainment, or maintenance (whichever 

is relevant to the given implementation 

plan submission).’’ This and the other 

adequacy criteria found at 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) must be satisfied before 

EPA can find submitted budgets 

adequate and approve them for 

conformity purposes. 

In addition, areas can revise their 

budgets and inventories using MOVES 

without revising their entire SIP if (1) 

the SIP continues to meet applicable 

requirements when the previous motor 

vehicle emissions inventories are 

replaced with MOVES base year and 

milestone, attainment, or maintenance 

year inventories, and (2) the state can 

document that growth and control 

strategy assumptions for non-motor 

vehicle sources continue to be valid and 

any minor updates do not change the 

overall conclusions of the SIP. For 

example, the first criterion could be 

satisfied by demonstrating that the 

emissions reductions between the 

baseline/attainment year and 

maintenance year are the same or 

greater using MOVES than they were 

previously. The Ohio and Indiana 

submittals meet this requirement as 

described below in section IV. 

For more information, see EPA’s latest 

‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of 

MOVES2010 for SIP Development, 

Transportation Conformity, and Other 

Purposes’’ (April 2012), available online 

at: www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ 

transconf/policy.htm#models. 

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

submittal? 

a. The Revised Inventories 

The Ohio SIP revision and the Indiana 

SIP revision requests for the CincinnatiHamilton 1997 ozone maintenance 

plans seek to revise only the on-road 

mobile source inventories and not the 

non-road inventories, area source 

inventories or point source inventories 

for the 2015 and 2020 years for which 

the SIP revises the budgets. OEPA and 

IDEM have certified that the control 

strategies remain the same as in the 

original SIP, and that no other control 

strategies are necessary. This is 

confirmed by the monitoring data for 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, which 

continues to monitor attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. Thus, the 

current control strategies are continuing 

to keep the area in attainment of the 

NAAQS. 

EPA has reviewed the emission 

estimates for point, area, and non-road 

sources and concluded that no major 

changes to the projections need to be 

made. Ohio and Indiana find that 

growth and control strategy assumptions 

for non-mobile sources (i.e., area, nonroad, and point) have not changed 

significantly from the original submittal 

for the years 2005, 2015, and 2020. As 

a result, the growth and control strategy 

assumptions for the non-mobile sources 

for the years 2005, 2015, and 2020 

continue to be valid and do not affect 

the overall conclusions of the plan. 

Ohio’s and Indiana’s submissions 

confirm that the SIP continues to 

demonstrate its purpose of maintaining 

the 1997 ozone standard because the 

emissions are continuing to decrease 

from the attainment year to the final 

year of the maintenance plan. The total 

emissions in the revised SIP (which 

includes MOVES2010a emissions from 

mobile sources) are 389.99 tpd for NOX

and 237.77 tpd for VOCs in the 2005 

attainment year. The total emissions 

from all sources in the 2015 year are 

309.41 tpd for NOX and 174.59 tpd for 

VOCs. These totals demonstrate that 

emissions in the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area are continuing to decline and 

remain below the attainment levels. 

Ohio and Indiana have submitted 

MOVES2010a-based budgets for the 

Ohio and Indiana portions of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area that are 

clearly identified in the submittals. The 

on-road budgets for 2015 are 94.25 tpd 

for NOX and 56.06 tpd for VOCs. The 

on-road budgets for 2020 are 73.13 tpd 

for NOX and 42.81 tpd for VOCs. The 

budgets are also displayed in Table 3. 

b. Approvability of the MOVES2010abased Budgets 

EPA is approving the MOVES2010abased budgets submitted by Ohio and 

Indiana for use in determining 

transportation conformity in the Ohio 

and Indiana portions of the CincinnatiHamilton 1997 ozone maintenance area. 

EPA is making this approval based on 

our evaluation of these budgets using 

the adequacy criteria found in 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) and our in-depth evaluation 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 6039 

of the State’s submittals and SIP 

requirements. EPA has determined, 

based on its evaluation, that the area’s 

maintenance plans would continue to 

serve its intended purpose with the 

submitted MOVES2010a-based budgets 

and that the budgets themselves meet 

the adequacy criteria in the conformity 

rule at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

The adequacy criteria found in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4) are as follows: 

• The submitted SIP was endorsed by 

[the Governor/Governor’s designee] and 

was subject to a state public hearing 

(§ 93.118(e)(4)(i)); 

• Before the control strategy 

implementation plan was submitted to 

EPA, consultation among Federal, state, 

and local agencies occurred, and the 

state fully documented the submittal 

(§ 93.118(e)(4)(ii)); 

• The budgets are clearly identified 

and precisely quantified 

(§ 93.118(e)(4)(iii)); 

• The budgets, when considered 

together with all other emissions 

sources, are consistent with applicable 

requirements for RFP, attainment, or 

maintenance (§ 93.118(e)(4)(iv)); 

• The budgets are consistent with and 

clearly related to the emissions 

inventory and control measures in the 

control strategy implementation plan 

(§ 93.118(e)(4)(v); and 

• The revisions explain and 

document changes to the previous 

budgets, impacts on point and area 

source emissions and changes to 

established safety margins and reasons 

for the changes (including the basis for 

any changes related to emission factors 

or vehicle miles traveled) 

(§ 93.118(e)(4)(vi). 

We find that Ohio and Indiana have 

met all of the adequacy criteria. Public 

hearing materials were submitted with 

the formal SIP revision request. The 

interagency consultation group, which 

is composed of the state air agencies, 

state departments of transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, EPA, 

and the MPO for the area, has discussed 

and reviewed the budgets developed 

with MOVES2010a and the safety 

margin allocation. The budgets are 

clearly identified and precisely 

quantified in the submittals. The 

budgets when considered with other 

emissions sources (point, area, nonroad) are consistent with continued 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

standard. The budgets are clearly related 

to the emissions inventory and control 

measures in the SIP. The changes from 

the previous budgets are clearly 

explained with the change in the model 

from MOBILE6.2 to MOVES2010a and 

the revised and updated planning 

assumptions. The inputs to the model 

are detailed in the Appendix to the 

submittal. EPA has reviewed the inputs 

to the MOVES2010a modeling and 

participated in the consultation process. 

The Federal Highway Administration 

and the Ohio and Indiana Departments 

of Transportation have taken a lead role 

in working with the MPO to provide 

accurate, timely information and inputs 

to the MOVES2010a model runs. The 

OKI network model provided the 

vehicle miles of travel and other 

necessary data from the travel demand 

network model. 

The CAA requires that revisions to 

existing SIPs and budgets continue to 

meet applicable requirements (in this 

case, maintenance). Therefore, states 

that revise existing SIPs with MOVES 

must show that the SIP continues to 

meet applicable requirements with the 

new level of motor vehicle emissions 

calculated by the new model. 

To that end, Ohio’s and Indiana’s 

submitted MOVES2010a based budgets 

meet EPA’s two criteria for revising 

budgets without revising the entire SIP: 

(1) The SIP continues to meet 

applicable requirements when the 

previous motor vehicle emissions 

inventories are replaced with 

MOVES2010a base year and milestone, 

attainment, or maintenance year 

inventories, and 

(2) The state can document that 

growth and control strategy assumptions 

for non-motor vehicle sources continue 

to be valid and any minor updates do 

not change the overall conclusions of 

the SIP. 

Indiana and Ohio have documented 

that growth and control strategy 

assumptions continue to be valid and do 

not change the overall conclusions of 

the maintenance plan. The emission 

estimates for point, area, and non-road 

sources have not changed. Indiana and 

Ohio find that growth and control 

strategy assumptions for non-mobile 

sources (i.e. area, non-road, and point) 

from the original submittal for the years 

2005, 2015, and 2020 were developed 

before the downturn in the economy 

over the last several years. Because of 

this, the factors included in the original 

submittal may project more growth than 

actual into the future. As a result, the 

growth and control strategy assumptions 

for the non-mobile sources for the years 

2005, 2015, and 2020 continue to be 

valid and do not affect the overall 

conclusions of the plan. 

Ohio’s and Indiana’s submissions 

confirm that the SIP continues to 

demonstrate its purpose of maintaining 

the 1997 ozone standard because the 

emissions are continuing to decrease 

from the attainment year to the final 

year of the maintenance plan. The total 

emissions in the revised SIP (which 

includes MOVES2010a emissions for 

mobile sources) decrease from the 2005 

attainment year to the year 2020 (the 

last year of the maintenance plan). 

These totals demonstrate that emissions 

in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area are 

continuing to decline and remain below 

the attainment levels. Table 2 displays 

total emissions in the Ohio and Indiana 

portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

including point, area, non-road, and 

mobile sources and demonstrates the 

declining emissions from the 2005 

attainment year. 

TABLE 2—TABLE OF TOTAL EMISSIONS

WITH MOVES2010A MOBILE EMISSIONS

[Tons per summer day] 

Year 2005 2015 2020 

VOC .................. 237.77 174.59 162.47 

NOX .................. 389.99 309.41 289.20 

The following table (Table 3) displays 

the submitted budgets (Ohio and 

Indiana submitted budgets that cover 

both the Ohio and Indiana portions of 

the area) that are proposed in the notice 

to be approved. The budgets include an 

appropriate margin of safety while still 

maintaining total emissions below the 

attainment level. 

TABLE 3—TABLE OF MOTOR VEHICLE

EMISSION BUDGETS (MOVES) FOR

THE OHIO AND INDIANA PORTIONS

OF THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON 1997 

OZONE AREA

[Tons per summer day] 

Year 2015 2020 

VOC .......................... 56.06 42.81 

NOX .......................... 94.25 73.13 

Based on our review of the SIPs and 

the new budgets provided, EPA has 

determined that the SIPs will continue 

to meet the requirements if the revised 

motor vehicle emissions inventories are 

replaced with MOVES2010a 

inventories. 

c. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-based 

Budgets 

Pursuant to the state’s requests, EPA’s 

approval of the revised budgets means 

that the existing MOBILE6.2-based 

budgets will no longer be applicable for 

transportation conformity purposes 

upon the effective date of this approval. 

In addition, upon this EPA approval 

of the MOVES2010a-based budgets, the 

regional transportation conformity grace 

period for using MOBILE6 instead of 

MOVES2010 (and subsequent minor 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
6040 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

2For more information, see EPA’s ‘‘Policy 

Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 and 

Subsequent Minor Revisions for State 

Implementation Plan Development, Transportation 

Conformity, and Other Purposes’’ (April 2012). 

revisions) for the pollutants included in 

these budgets ends for the Ohio and 

Indiana portions of the CincinnatiHamilton ozone maintenance area.2

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving the 2015 and 2020 

submitted budgets for the Ohio and 

Indiana portions of the CincinnatiHamilton 1997 ozone maintenance 

plans. We are publishing this action 

without prior proposal because we view 

this as a noncontroversial amendment 

and anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

state plan if relevant adverse written 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective April 1, 2013 without further 

notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by February 

28, 2013. If we receive such comments, 

we will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. If we do not receive any 

comments, this action will be effective 

April 1, 2013. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by April 1, 2013. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final rule does not affect the 

finality of this action for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. Parties with objections to this 

direct final rule are encouraged to file a 

comment in response to the parallel 

notice of proposed rulemaking for this 

action published in the proposed rules 

section of today’s Federal Register, 

rather than file an immediate petition 

for judicial review of this direct final 

rule, so that EPA can withdraw this 

direct final rule and address the 

comment in the proposed rulemaking. 

This action may not be challenged later 

in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: January 11, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. The table in § 52.770 paragraph (e) 

is amended by adding an entry in 

alphabetical order for ‘‘CincinnatiHamilton, OH–KY–IN 1997 8-hour 

ozone maintenance plan’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 19 / Tuesday, January 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 6041 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Title Indiana date EPA Approval Explanation 

*******

Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH–KY–IN 1997 8- 

hour ozone maintenance plan.

...................... 1/29/12, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER 

WHERE THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].

Revision to motor vehicle emission budgets. 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.777 is amended by 

redesignating paragraph (oo) as 

paragraph (oo)(1) and by adding 

paragraph (oo)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 52.777 Control strategy: photochemical 

oxidants (hydrocarbons). 

* * * * * 

(oo)(1) * * * 

(2) Approval—On December 11, 2012, 

Indiana submitted a request to revise the 

approved MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle 

emission budgets (budgets) in the 1997 

8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the 

Indiana portion of the CincinnatiHamilton, OH–KY–IN maintenance 

area. The budgets are being revised with 

budgets developed with the 

MOVES2010a model. The 2015 motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for the Ohio 

and Indiana portions are 56.06 tpd VOC 

and 94.25 tpd NOX. The 2020 motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for the Ohio 

and Indiana portions of the area are 

42.81 tpd VOC and 73.13 tpd for NOX. 

■ 4. Section 52.1885 is amended by 

adding paragraph (ff)(12) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1885 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(ff) * * * 

(12) Approval—On June 29, 2012, 

Ohio submitted a request to revise the 

approved MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle 

emission budgets (budgets) in the 1997 

8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the 

Ohio and Indiana portions of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH–KY–IN 8-hour 

ozone area. The budgets are being 

revised with budgets developed with 

the MOVES2010a model. The 2015 

motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 

Ohio and Indiana portions are 56.06 tpd 

VOC and 94.25 tpd NOX. The 2020 

motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 

Ohio and Indiana portions of the area 

are 42.81 tpd VOC and 73.13 tpd for 

NOX. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–01733 Filed 1–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with