ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR 

### Parts 

### 52 and 81 [EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0134-201007;

### FRL- ] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Kentucky; Redesignation of the Kentucky Portion of the CincinnatiHamilton 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency 

### (EPA). ACTION: Proposed Rule. 

### SUMMARY: On January 29,2010,the Commonwealthof Kentucky, through the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, Division for Air Quality (DAQ), submitted a request to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (the "tri-state Cincinnati-HamiltonArea") to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS); and to approve the state implementation plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the Kentucky portion of the tri-state Cincinnati-HamiltonArea. The tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainrnent
area is composed of Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties in Kentucky (hereafter also referred to as "Northern Kentucky"); Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton and Warren Counties 

### in Ohio; and a portion of Dearborn County in Indiana. In this action,EPA is proposing to: (I)to determine that the tri-state Cincinnati-HamiltonArea has attainedthe 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) approve Kentucky's redesignationrequest for Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties in Kentucky as part of the tri-state Cincinnati Area; (3) approve the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenanceplan for Northern Kentucky, includingthe motor vehicle emission budgets

### (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NO,) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) for the years 2015 and 2020; and (4) approvethe 2008 emissions inventoryforNorthern Kentucky as meeting the requirementsof the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA's proposed approval of Kentucky's redesignationrequest is based on the belief that Kentucky's request meets the criteria for redesignationto attainment specified 

### in the CAA, including the determination that the entire tri

### state Cincinnati-Hamiltonozonenonattainmentarea has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In a separaterulemaking action, 

### EPAhas proposed to approve redesignation requests and maintenance plans submittedby Ohio and Indianafor their respective portions of this 1997 8-hourozone area. 

### In this action, EPA is alsonotifying 

### the public of the status of EPA's adequacy determinationfor the new 2015 and 2020 MVEBs that are contained in the 1997-8-hour ozone maintenanceplan for Northern Kentucky. MVEBs for the Ohio and Indianaportions of this Area are includedin the Ohio and Indiana submittals, and arebeing addressedthrough EPA's separate actionfor those submissions. EPA 

### is also in the process of rulemaking on a new 8-hour
ozoneNAAQS. Today's actions,however, relate only to the 1997 8-hour ozoneNAAQS.



### DATES: Commentsmust be received on orbefore [insert date 30 days after date of ~ublication in the Federal Register]. 

### ADDRESSES: Submityour comments, identifiedby Docket ID No. EPA-RO4-OAR-2010- 0134, by one of the following methods: 1. www.remlations.gov: Follow the on-line instructionsfor submittingcomments. 2. E-mail: beniamidvnorae@eua. gov. 3. 

### Fax: (404) 562-9019.4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0134, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4,61Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61Forsyth Street, 

### SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.



### Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket 

### ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0134. 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 ConfidentialBusiness Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.renulations.eov or e-mail, informationthat you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.novweb site is an "anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact informationunless you provide it in the body of your comment. 

### If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. 

### If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you includeyour name and other contact information in the body of yourcomment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 

### If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at 

### htt~://www.epa.rzov/epahome/dockets.ht~n.

Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.,oovindex. Although listed 

### in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 

### in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4,61Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the 

### FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.



### FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jane Spann or Mr. Zuri Farngalo of the Regulatory Development Section, in the Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4,61Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Jane Spann may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9029, or viaelectronic mail at spam.iane@epa.aov. The telephone number for 

### Mr. Farngalo is 

### (404) 

### 562- 9152, and the electronic mail is f;uncralo.zuri@epa.~ov.



### SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. 11. 

### 111. IV. 

## v. VI. VII.

VIII.

IX.

X. XI. What Proposed Actions is EPA Taking? What is the Background forEPA's Proposed Actions? What are the Criteria for Redesignation? Why is EPA Proposing these Actions? What is the Effect of EPA's Proposed Actions? What is EPA's Analysis of the Request? What is EPA's Analysis of Kentucky's Proposed NOxand VOC MVEBs for Northern Kentucky? What is the Statusof EPA's Adequacy Determination for the Proposed NOxand VOC MVEBs for the years 2015 and 2020 for Northern Kentucky? What is EPA's Analysis of the Proposed 2008 

### Base Year EmissionsInventory for Northern Kentucky? What areEPA's Proposed Actions? Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

### I. What Proposed Actions is 

### EPA Taking?
EPA is proposing several related actions, which are summarizedbelow and described in greater detail throughout this notice of rulemaking: (I)to determine that the tri-state CincinnatiHamilton Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) to approve the Commonwealth of Kentucky's request to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties in Kentucky) to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E)of the 

### CAA; (3) to approve under section 172(c)(3)the emissions inventory submitted with the maintenanceplan; and (4)to approve under section 175AKentucky's 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan into the Kentucky SIP, including the associated MVEBs. These proposed actions will be revisions to the Kentucky SIPpursuant to section 110of the CAA. 

### In addition, and related to today's actions, EPA is also notifying the public of the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the Northern Kentucky MVEBs. First, EPA is proposingto determine that the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on the most recent three years of complete, quality assured monitoring data. EPA further proposes to determine that the Area has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E)of the CAA if EPA's proposed approval of the emissions inventory for Northern Kentucky is finalized. 

### In a separate action, EPA has proposed approval of the redesignation requests and maintenanceplans for the Ohio and Indiana portions of the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area 

### (75 

### FR 8871, February 26,2010). 

### In this action, EPA is now proposing to approve a request to redesignate the Kentucky portion of

### the Area ;ind to change the legal designationof Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties in Kentucky from nonattainmentto attainmentfor the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Second,EPA is proposing to approveunder section 172(c)(3)Kentucky's 2008 emissions inventory included in the maintenance plan for Northern Kentucky as meeting the requirements of that section. 

### In coordinationwith Ohio and Indiana, Kentucky selected 2008 as "the attainmentyear" for the tri-stateCincinnati-HamiltonArea for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozoneNAAQS. This emissions inventory identifiesthe level of emissions in the Area, which is sufficientto attainthe 19978-hour ozone NAAQS. Please see section 

### IX of this rulemakingfor more detail on Kentucky's 2008 emission inventory. Third, EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's 19978-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance plan for Northern Kentucky as meeting the requirementsof section 175Aof the CAA, 

### such approval being one of the CAA criteria forredesignationto attainment. The maintenanceplan is designed to help keep the tri-state Cincinnati-HamiltonArea 

### in attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS through 2020. Consistentwith the CAA, the maintenance plan that EPA is proposingto approve today also includes 2015 and 2020 NO, 

### and VOC MVEBs. EPA is proposingto approve (intothe Kentucky's SIP)the 2015 and 2020 MVEBs that are included as part of Kentucky's maintenanceplan for the 1997 8-hour ozoneNAAQS. The adequacy commentperiod for these MVEBs closed on March 5,2010, and EPA did not receive any comments. (See section VIII 

### of this 

### proposed rulemaking.) Notably, these MVEBs apply only to Northern Kentucky. MVEBs contained in the Ohio's and 

### Indiana's submittals for the remainderof the tri-state CincinnatiArea were addressed in a separate action (75

### FR 8871, February 26,2010).

### EPA is also notifyingthe public of the statusof EPA's adequacy process for the newlyestablished 2015 and 2020 NOxand VOC MVEBs for Northern Kentucky. The MVEBs for the Ohio and Indiana portions of this 1997 8-hourozone area arebeing addressedin a separate action. The Adequacy comment period for the Northern Kentucky 2015 and 2020 MVEBs began on February 3,2010, with EPA's posting of the availability of this submittal on EPA's AdequacyWeb site 

### ~p://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/cun:sips.htm). The adequacycomment period for these MVEBs closed on March 5,2010. EPA did not receive any adverse commentsorrequests for Kentucky's submission. Please see section

### VIII of this proposed rulemaking for further explanation of this process, and for more details on the MVEBs determination. Today's notice of proposed rulemaking is inresponseto Kentucky's January 29,2010, 

### SIP submittalrequesting the redesignationof Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties in Kentucky as part of the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 8-hour ozone area, and includes SIP 

### revisions addressing the specific issues summarized above and the 

### necessary elementsfor redesignation describedin sections 107(d)(3)(E)and 175Aof the CAA.



### 11. 

### What is the Backgroundfor EPA's Proposed Actions? Ground-level ozoneis not emitted directlyby sources. Rather, emissions of NOxand VOC 

### react in 

### the presence of sunlightto form ground-level ozone. NOxand VOC arereferredto
as precursors of ozone. The CAA 

### establishes a process for air qualitymanagement through the NAAQS. On July 18, 1997,EPA promulgated a revised %hour ozone standardof 0.08 parts per million (ppm). This standard is more stringent than the previous 1-hourozone standard. Under 8EPA regulations at 40 

### CFR part 50, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). (See 69 

### FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further mforrnation.) Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part 50. Specifically, section 2.3 of 40 

### CFR part 50, Appendix I, 

### "Comparisons with the 

### Primary and Secondary Ozone Standards" states: "The primary and secondary ozone ambient air quality standards are met at 

### an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The number of significant figures in the level of the standard dictates the rounding convention for comparing the computed 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration with the level of the standard. The third decimal place of the computed value is rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 roupding up. Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.085ppm is the smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm." The 

### CAA required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that was violating the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data. The tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area was initially designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard using 2001-2003 ambient air quality data.EPA published a final designations rulemaking for the NAAQS on April 30,2004 (69 

### FR 23857). Title I, Part 

### D of the CAA contains two sets of provisions 

### - subpart 1 and subpart 2 

### -that address planning and control requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Subpart 1 (which EPA refers to as "basic" nonattainment) contains general, less prescriptive, requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant 

### -including ozone - governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 

### 2 (which EPA refers to as "classified" nonattainment) provides more specific requirements for certain ozone nonattainment areas. Some 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas were subject only to the provisions of subpart 1. Other 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas were classified as subpart 

### 2 areas and were subject to the provisions of subpart 2 in addition to subpart 1. Under EPA's Phase 

### I 8-Hour Ozone Implementation Rule (69

### FR 23857) (Phase I Rule), signed on April 15,2004,and published April 30,2004, 

### an area was classified under subpart 

### 2 based on its 8-hour ozone design value (i.e., the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations), if it had a 1-hour design value at or above 0.121ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1of subpart 2). All other areas were coveredunder subpart 1,based upon their 8-hour ambient air quality design values. Northern Kentucky (as part of the bi-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area) was originally designated as a moderate nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS on November 

### 6, 1991(56 

### FR 56694). On June 19,2000(65

### FR 37879), the Kentucky portion of the CincinnatiHamilton 1-hournonattainment area was redesignated as attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and was consideredto be a maintenance area subjectto a CAA section 175A maintenanceplan for the 1-hour NAAQS. On April 30,2004,EPA designatedthe tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area (which then included Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties 

### in 10Kentucky; Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton and Warren Counties in Ohio; and a portion of Dearborn County in Indiana) under subpart 1 as a "basic" 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment area (69 FR 23857, April 30,2004). As part of the 2004 designations, EPA also promulgated an implementation rule -the Phase I Rule. Various aspects of EPA's Phase 

### I Rule were challenged in court. On December 22,2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) vacated EPA's Phase 

### I Rule (69 

### FR 23951,April 30,2004). South CoastAir Quality Management Dist. (SCAQMD) v. 

### EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). On June 8,2007, in response to several petitions forrehearing, the D.C. Circuit Court clarifiedthat the Phase I Rule
was vacated only with regard to those parts of the Rule that had been successfully challenged. The Phase 

### I Rule provisions related to classifications for areas currently classified under subpart 

### 2 of title I, part D of the CAA as 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainrnent areas, the 1997 8- hour ozone NAAQS attainment dates and the timing for emissionsreductions needed for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS remain effective. The June 8hdecision left intact the Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for implementingthe 1997 8-hour standard in certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1in lieu of subpart 2. By limitingthe vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-howstandard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase I Rule that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8" decision affirmed the December 22, 2006, decisionthat EPA had improperlyfailed to retain measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) nonattainment
area New Source Review (NSR) requirementsbased on an area's 1-hournonattainment classification; (2) Section 185penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas; and

### (3) measures to be implementedpursuant to section 172(c)(9)or 182(c)(9)of the CAA, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS. The June gthdecision clarified that the Court's reference to conformity requirements for anti-backslidingpurposes was limited to requiring the continued use of 1-hourmotor vehicle emissions budgets until 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS budgets were available for 8-hour ozone conformity determinations, which is already required under EPA's conformity regulations. The Court thus clarified that 1-hour ozone conformity determinations are not required for anti-backslidingpurposes. For the reasons set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings alter any requirementsrelevant to this redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, nor does EPA believe the Court's ruling prevents EPA from proposing or ultimately finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, decisions impose no impediment to moving forward with redesignation of Northern Kentucky to attainment, because even 

### in light of the Court's decision,redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation requests. With respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Court's ruling rejected EPA's reasons for classifying areas under subpart 1for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and remanded that matter back to the Agency. 

### In its January 16,2009,proposed rulemaking in response to the 

### SCAQMD decision,EPA has proposed to classify the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area (of which Northern Kentucky is a part) under subpart 2 as a moderate area (74 

### FR 2936). If EPA finalizes this rulemaking, the requirementsunder subpart2 will become applicable when they are due. EPA proposed a deadline for submission of these requirements of one year after the 12

### effective dateof the finalrulemakingclassifyingthis and other areas (74

### FR 2940-2941). Although a future final decisionby EPA to classlfy this Area under subpart 2 would trigger additional future requirementsfor the Area, EPA believes that this does not preclude this redesignation from being approved. This belief is based upon: (1)EPA's longstanding policy of evaluating requirementsin accordance with the requirements due at the time redesignation request is submitted; and 

### (2) 

### considerationof the inequity of applying retroactively any requirementsthat might in the futurebe applied. First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted,the tri-stateCineinnatiHamilton Area was not classified under subpart2, nor were subpart2 

### requirementsyet due for this Area. Under EPA's longstanding interpretationof section 107(d)(3)(E)of the CAA, to quallfyfor redesignation, states requesting redesignationto attainmentmust meet only the relevant SIPrequirements that came dueprior to the submittalof a complete redesignation request. September4,1992, CalcagniMemorandum ("Procedures for Processing Requeststo Redesignate Areasto Attainment," Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director,Air 

### Quality ManagementDivision). See also Michael ShapiroMemorandum, September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 

### 12459, 12465-66(March 7, 

### 1995)(Redesignationof Detroit-AnnArbor, Michigan); Sierra Club 

### v EPA, 

### 375 F.3d 537 (7" Cir. 2004) (upholding this interpretation);68

### FR 25418,25424, 25427 (May 12,2003) (redesignationof St. Louis, Missouri). Moreover, it would be inequitableto retroactively apply any new SIPrequirements that
were not applicable at the time the request was submitted. TheD.C. Circuit Courthas recognized the inequityin such retroactive rulemaking (seeSierra Clubv. 

### Whitman

### 285 F. 3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002)), 

### in which the Court upheld a district court's ruling refusingto make retroactivean EPA determination of nonattainrnentthat was past the statutory due date. Such a determination would have resulted in the imposition of additional requirements on the area. The Court stated, "[a]lthough EPA failed to make the nonattainment determination within the statutory frame, Sierra Club's proposed solution only makes the situation worse. Retroactive relief would llkely impose large costs on the states, which would face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even though they were not on notice at the time." Id. at 68. Similarly here, it would be unfair to penalize the area by applying to it for purpose of redesignation, additional SIPrequirementsunder subpart 

### 2 that were not in effect or yet due at the time it submitted its redesignation request, or the time that the tri-state CincinnatiHamilton Area attainedthe standard. With respect to the requirements under the 1 -hour ozone NAAQS, Northern Kentucky had been redesignated attainment subject to a maintenanceplan under section 175A. The 

### D.C. Circuit Court's decisions do not impact redesignation requests for these types of areas, except to the extent that the Court, 

### in its June 

### 8& decision, clarified that for those areas with 1-hour MVEBs in their maintenance plans, anti-backsliding requires that those 1-hour budgets must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations until they are replaced by 1997 8-hourbudgets. To meet this requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must comply with the applicable requirements of EPA's conformity regulations at 

### 40 

### CFR part 

### 93. With regard to the anti-backsliding provisions for the 1-hourNAAQS that the 

### D.C. Circuit Court found were not properly retained, Northern Kentucky is 

### an attainment area subject to a maintenance plan for the 1-hourNAAQS, and 1-hour anti-backsliding requirements no longer apply to an area that is redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. As a result, the decisions 

### in SCAQMD should not alter any requirementsthat would preclude EPA 14from finalizing the redesignation of Northern Kentucky to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On January 29,2010, Kentucky requested that EPA redesignate the Kentucky portion of the tri-state Cincinnati-HamiltonArea to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The redesignation request included three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality data for the ozone seasons (March lSt hrough October 3lSt) of 2007-2009, demonstrating that the 1997 %hour ozone NAAQS has been achieved for the entire tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area. Under the 

### CAA, nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainmentif EPA determines that the most recent three years of complete, quality-assured data show that the Area has attained the standard, and the Area meets the other redesignation requirements set forth in CAA section 107(4(3)(E).

111. 

### What are 

### the Criteriafor Redesignation? The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E)of the CAA allows forredesignation providing that: (I)the Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicableNAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementationplan for the area under section 110(k);

### (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceablereductions in emissions resulting from implementationof the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4)the Administrator has fully approved a maintenanceplan for the area as meetingthe requirements of section 175A; and (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements applicableto the area for purposes of redesignation under section 110and part 

### D of 

### the 

### CAA. EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of title 

### I of the 

### CAA Amendments of 1990,on April 16, 1992 (57 

### FR 13498),and supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 

### FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents:

1. "Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations," Memorandum from Bill Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division, June 18,1990;



### 2. "Maintenance Plans for Redesignationof Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas," Memorandum from G. 

### T. Helms, Chief, OzoneICarbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;

3. "Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)Redesignations," Memorandum from 

### G. T. Helms, Chief, OzonelCarbonMonoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;

4. "Procedures for Processing Requests to RedesignateAreas to Attainment," Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September4, 1992(hereafter referred to as the "Calcagni Memorandum");

### 5. "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Responseto Clean Air Act 

### (CAA) Deadlines," Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 

### 28, 1992;



### 6. "Technical SupportDocuments (TSDs) forRedesignationof Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas," Memorandum from 

### G. 

### T. Helms, Chief, OzoneICarbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;

7. "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas SubmittingRequests for Redesignationto Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After ~ovember 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 NonattainrnentAreas," Memorandum from 

### D. Kent Berry, Acting Director,Air Quality Management Division, November 

### 30, 1993;

9. 

### "Part 

### D New SourceReview (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 OzoneNonattainment 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. Why is

### EPA Proposing 

### These Actions? On January 29,2010, Kentuckyrequested redesignationof Northern Kentucky (as part of the tri-stateCincinnati-Hamilton 1997 8-hour ozonenonattainment area) to attainmentfor the 1997 8-hour ozoneNAAQS. EPA's preliminary evaluation indicatesthat the tri-state Cincinnati-HamiltonArea has attainedthe 19978-hour ozoneNAAQS and that Northern Kentucky, upon 

### final approval of its 2008 emissionsinventory, meetsthe requirementsfor redesignation set forth 

### in section 107(d)(3)(E),including the maintenance plan requirements under section 175Aof the CAA. 

### EPA is alsoproposing to approve the 2008 baseline emission inventory because EPA believes that it satisfies the requirements of section 172(c)(3). EPA is findingthat the 2015 and 2020 NO, and VOC 

### MVEBs which are included in the maintenance plan are adequate, and EPA is proposingto approve them alongwith the requestedredesignation.



### V. 

### What is the Effect of

### EPA's Proposed Actions? EPA's proposed actions establishthe basis upon which BPA may take final action on the issues being proposed for approval today. Approval of Kentucky's redesignationrequest would change the legal designationof the Kentucky portion of the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 8- hour ozonenonattainment area (Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties) from nonattainmentto attainment for the 1997 8-hourozoneNAAQS. 40 

### CFR part 81. It would also incorporateinto 18the Kentucky SIP a plan for Northern Kentucky to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Area through 2020. This maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maintenanceplan also includes NO, and VOC MVEBs for Northern Kentucky, and final approval of the MVEB's would establish them in the approved SIP. Table 1identifies the state NO, and VOC MVEBs for the years 2015 and 2020 for Northern Kentucky. 

### Table 1. 

### Northern Kentucky 1997 

### 8-Hour Ozone NOx

### and VOC MVEBs (Summer season tons per day)

Approval of Kentucky's maintenanceplan would also result in approval of the NO, and VOC MVEBs. Additionally, EPA is notifying the public of the status of its adequacy determination for the 2015 and 2020 NO, and VOC state MVEBs pursuant to 40 

### CFR 93.118(f)(l). A final approval of EPA's proposed actionwith respect to the 2008 emissions inventory would also result 

### in approval of that inventoryunder section 172(c)(3). 

### NOx VOC

VI. What is EPA's Analysis of the Request? EPA is proposing to make the determinationthat the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainrnent area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and that all other redesignation criteria have been met for the Kentucky portion of the tri-state CincinnatiHamilton Area. The basis for EPA's determinationfor the Area is discussed in greater detail below. 

### 2015 14.40 9.76 

### 2020 13.27 10.07

### Criteria (1)

# - TheArea has attainedthe 1997 

### 8-hourozone

### NAAQS. EPA is proposing to determinethat the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

### An area may be considered to be attaining the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS if as determined 

### in accordancewith 40 CFR 50.10 and Appendix I of part 50, it meets the NAAQS based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain the standard, the 3-year average of 

### the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrationsmeasured at each monitor within 

### an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the data handling and reporting convention described 

### in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and quality-assuredin accordancewith 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the 

### EPA Air Quality System (AQS). The monitors generally shouldhave remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. EPA reviewed data from the ambient ozone monitoring stations in the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area for the ozone seasons from 2007-2009. These data have been qualityassured and certified, and are recorded in AQS. The fourth-highest 8-hour ozone average for 2007, 2008 and 2009, and the 3-year averageof these values (i.e., design values), are summarized in the followingtable:

### Table 

### 2. Annual 4th Max High and Design Value Concentrationfor 8-Hour Ozone for the Cincinnati-HamiltonOH-KY-INArea (partsper million) State*

Ohio 

### County

Butler

Clermont

Clinton Hamilton

Kenton 

# I Hamilton 

### 39-017-0004 Middletown 

### 39-017-1004 Batavia 

### 39-025-0022 Wilmington 

### 39-027-1022 Grooms Rd., Cincinnati 

### 39-061-0006 Cleves 

### 0.091

39-06 1-00 10 250 Wm. Howard 

### 0.091 0.086 0.082 0.089
0.086 Taft, Cincinnati 

### 39-061 -0040 Lebanon 

### 0.071

0.086

39-165-0007 

### KY 338 & Lower



## * There is no monitor in the Indiana portion of this Area. 

### 0.079 0.071 0.076 0.086
0.077

0.088
River Road 

### 21-037-3002 Highland Heights 

### 21-117-0007 Covington 

### 21-117-0007

As discussed above, the design value for 

### an area is the highest 

### 3-year average of the 

### 0.073

0.080

0.078

annual fourth-highest 8-hour ozone value recorded at any monitor in the Area. Therefore, the 

### (ppm) 0.078 0.076 0.069 0.070 0.072
0.065

0.082

0.086 0.085

most recent 

### 3-year design value 

### (2007-2009)for the'tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area is 

### 0.082 0.082 0.075 0.076 0.082
0.076 0.074

0.064

ppm, which meets the standard as described above. Currently available data show that the Area 

### 0.080
0.077

0.075 0.073 0.082 0.064 0.068
0.068 0.074 0.076 0.077continues to attain the NAAQS. 

### If the Area does not continue to attain until EPA finalizes the redesignation, EPA will not go forward with the redesignation. As discussed 

### in more detail below, Kentucky has committed to continue monitoring in this Area in accordance with 40 

### CFR part 58. EPA proposes to find that the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.



### Criteria (2)

# -Kentucky hasa fully approved SIP under section llO(k) for Northern Kentucky and Criteria 

### (5) 

# -Kentucky has met all Applicable Requirements under Section 110andpart 

### D ofthe CAA. Below is 

### a summary of how these two criteria were met. 

### EPA proposes to find that Kentucky has met all applicable 

### SIPrequirements for Northern Kentucky under section 110of the CAA (general SIPrequirements) for purposes of redesignation. EPA also proposes to find that, if EPA finalizes approval of the 2008 emissions inventory submitted with the redesignation request, the Kentucky SIP satisfies the criterion that it meet applicable 

### SIPrequirements for purposes of redesignationunder part 

### D of title 

### I of the CAA (requirements specific to subpart 1nonattainment areas) 

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

### In addition, EPA proposes to determine that, upon final approval of the emissions inventory, the SIP is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation 

### in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). 

### In making these determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to the Area and that if applicable, they are fully approved under section 110(k). SIPsmust be fully approved only with respect to applicable requirements. As discussedmore fully below, SIPs must be fully approvedonly with respect to requirements that became due prior to the submission of the redesignation request.

a. 

### Northern Kentucky has met all Ap~licable 

### Requirements undersection 110 andpart 

### D ofthe 

### CAA. The September 4, 1992,Calcagni Memorandum describes EPA's interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E). Under this interpretation,to qualify forredesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet only the relevant CAA requirements that come due prior to the submittal of a complete redesignationrequest. See also Michael Shapiro Memorandum, ("SIP Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignationto Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide NAAQS 

### On or After November 15,1992," September 17,1993); 60 

### FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignationof Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan). Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequentto the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicableuntil a redesignation is approved, but are not required 

### as a prerequisitetoredesignation. See section 175A(c)of the CAA; 

### Sierra Club, 375 F.3d 537; see also 68

### FR 25424,25427 (May 12,2003)(redesignationof St. Louis, Missouri). 

### If EPA's proposed determination of attainment for the tri-state Cincinnati-HamiltonArea is finalized, under 40 CFR 

### 51.918,if that determinationis finalized, the requirements to submit certainplanning SIPSrelated to attainment, including attainment demonstration requirements (the RACM requirement of section 172(c)(l) of the CAA, the 

### RFP and attainment demonstration requirements of sections 172(c)(2)and (c)(6) of the CAA, and the requirement for contingency
measures of section 172(c)(9)of the CAA) would not be applicable to the Area so long as it

### continuesto attain the NAAQS and would cease to apply upon redesignation. 

### In addition,in the contextofredesignations, EPA has interpreted requirements related to attainment 

### as not applicableforpurposes of redesignations. For example, in the GeneralPreamble, EPA stated that: [t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring 

### RFP and attainment by the applicable date. These requirementsno longer apply to an area that has attained the standard and is eligible for redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans 

## * 

## * * provides specific requirements for contingency measures that effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9)for these areas. "General Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of the Clean 

### Air Act Amendments of 1990" ("General Preamble"), 57 

### FR 13498, 

### 13564 (April 16, 1992). See also CalcagniMemorandum at page 6 ('The requirementsforreasonable furtherprogress and other measures for attainmentwill not applyforredesignationsbecause they only have meaning for areas not attainingthe standard"). General 

### SIP requirements. 

### Section 110(a)(2)of title 

### I of the CAA 

### delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which 

### include enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques,provisions for the establishmentand operationof appropriate devices necessaryto collect data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforcethe limitations. General SIP elements and requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2)of title I, part A of the CAA. 

### Theserequirements include, but are not limited to, the following: submittalof a SIPthat has been adoptedby the state after reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions for establishmentand operationof appropriateprocedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementationof a sourcepermit program; provisionsforthe implementation ofpart C 24requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the implementationof part D requirements (NSR permit programs); provisions for air pollution modeling; and provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development. Section 110(a)(2)(D)requires that SIPScontain certain measures to prevent sources in 

### a state from significantly contributingto air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the transport of air pollutants 

### (NO, SIP call1and Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAE) (70 

### FR 25162, May 12,2005)). However, the section 110(a)(2)(D)requirements for 

### a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification 

### in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignationrequest. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, we do not believe that the CAA's interstate transport requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. 

### In addition,EPA believes that the other section 110 elementsnot connected with nonattainmentplan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. 

### A state remains subject to these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. The section 110 and part 

### D 

## ' On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a NOx SIPCall requiring the District of Columbia and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOx in order to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone precursors. In compliance with EPA's NOx SIPCall, Kentucky has developed rules governing the control of NOx emissions from Electric Generating Units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, major cement kilns, and internal combustion engines. EPA approved Kentucky's rules as fulfilling Phase I and Phase 11of the NOx SIPCall on October 23,2009 (74 FR 54755).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, 19961, (62

### FR 24826, May 7, 1997);

### Cleveland-Akron-Loraine,Ohio, final rulemaking (61 

### FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Horida, final rulemaking at (60 

### FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 

### FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania redesignation (66 

### FR 50399, October 19, 2001). EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to the Area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Therefore, as was discussed above, for purposes of redesignation, they are not considered applicablerequirements. Nonetheless, EPA notes it has previously approved provisions in the Kentucky SIP addressing section 110elements under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (65 

### FR 37879, June 19,2000) The Commonwealth believes that the section 110 SIP approved for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are sufficientto meet the requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Commonwealth has submitted a letter dated December 10, 2007, setting forth its belief that the section 110 SIP approved for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS is also sufficient to meet the requirementsunder the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has not yet approved this submission,but such approval is not necessary for purposes of redesignation. Part 

### D requirements. EPA proposes that if EPA approves the Commonwealth's base year emissions inventory,which is 

### part of the maintenance plan submittal, the Kentucky 

### SIP will meet applicable 

### SIPrequirements under part D of the CAA. We believe the emissions inventory 26is approvable because the 2008 VOC and NO, emissions for Northern Kentucky were developed consistent with EPA guidance for emission inventories and the choice of the 2008 base year is appropriate because it represents the 2007-2009 period when the 1997 

### 8hour ozone 

### NAAQS
was not violated. 

### Part 

### D, subpart 

### 1 applicable SIP requirements. EPA has determined that, if EPA finalizes the approval of the base year emissions inventories discussed in section 

### IX.of this rulemaking, the Kentucky 

### SIP will meet the applicable SIP requirementsfor their portions of the tri-state Cincinnati-HamiltonArea applicable for purposes of redesignation under part 

### D of the CAA. Subpart 1of part 

### D, found in sections 172-176of the CAA, sets for the basic nonattainmentrequirements applicableto all nonattainrnent areas. Subpart 

### 2 of part 

### D, which includes section 182of the CAA, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the area's nonattainrnent classification. Since the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area (of which Northern Kentucky is a part) was not classified under subpart 2 at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the subpart 2 requirements do not apply for purposes of evaluating the Commonwealth's redesignation request. The applicable subpart 1 requirements are contained in sections 172(c)(l)-(9)and in section 176. For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the applicable part 

### D, subpart 

### I SIP requirements for all nonattainrnent areas are contained in sections 172-176. A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in section 172can be found in the General Preamble for Implementationof title 

### I (57 

### FR 13498). 

### Subpart 1 Section 172

### Requirements. For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the applicable section 172 SIPrequirementsforthe tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton areaare contained in sections 172(c)(l)--(9). A thorough discussionof the requirements contained in section 172can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title 

### I (57 

### FR 13498, April 16,1992). Section 172(c)(l)requires the plans for all nonattainment areas to provide for the implementationof all RACM as expeditiouslyas practicable and to provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards. EPA interprets this requirement to impose a duty
on all nonattainment areas to consider all availablecontrol measures and to adopt and implement such measures 

### as are reasonably available for implementation in each area as componentsof the area's attainment demonstration. On December 7, 2007, the Commonwealth submitted an attainment demonstrationand identified the control measures necessary to attain the 

### NAAQS in the tri-state Cincinnati-HamiltonArea. Similar attainment demonstrations were submitted by Ohio and Indiana as part of the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment Area. However, because attainment has been reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment, and section 172(c)(l)requirements are no longer consideredto be applicableas long as the area continues to attainthe standard until redesignation. 40 CFR 51.918. 

### If EPA fmalizes approval of the redesignation of the Kentucky portion of the tri-state Cincinnati-HamiltonArea, EPA will take no further action on the attainment demonstration submittedby the Commonwealthof Kentucky for this Area. The 

### RFPrequirement under section 172(c)(2)is defined as progress that must be made toward attainment. This requirement is not relevant for purposes of redesignation because the tri-state Cincinnati-HamiltonArea has monitored attainment of the ozone

### NAAQS. (General Preamble, 57 FR 13564). See also 40 CFR 51.918. 

### In addition,because the tri-state CincinnatiHamilton Area has attainedthe ozoneNAAQS and is no longer subject to an 

### RFP requirement, 28the requirement to submit the section 172(c)(9)contingency measures is not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Id. Section 172(c)(3)requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. As part of Kentucky's redesignation request for the tristate Cincinnati-Hamilton Area, the Commonwealth submitted a 2008 base year emissions inventory. As discussedbelow in section 

### IX., EPA is proposing to approve the 2008 base year inventory that Kentucky submitted with the redesignation request as meeting the section 172(c)(3)emissions inventory requirement. Section 172(c)(4)requires the identification and quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources to be allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires sourcepermits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainrnent area. 

### EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approvedprior to redesignation, provided that the Area demonstrates maintenanceof 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 Redesignationto Attainment." Kentucky has demonstrated that the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area will be able to maintain the standard without part 

### D NSR in effect; therefore, EPA concludes that the Commonwealthneed not have fully approved part 

### D NSR programs prior 

### to approval of the redesignation request. The Commonwealth's PSD programs will become effective in the tri-state Cincinnati-HamiltonArea upon redesignation to attainment.Seerulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

### FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-AkronLorain, Ohio (61 

### FR 20458,20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 

### FR 53665, October 23,2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 

### FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996). Section 172(c)(6)requires the SIP to contain control measures necessary to provide for attainment of the standard. Because attainment has been reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment. Section 172(c)(7)requires the SIPto meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above,we believe the Kentucky SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for purposes of redesignation. 

### Section 176 ConformityRequirements. 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 developed,funded or approved under title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally supportedor 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 believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIPrequirements2as not applying for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d)because state conformityrules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformityrules apply where

CAA Section 176(c)(4)(E)requires states to submit revisions to their SIPs to retlect certain federal criteria and procedures for determining transportation conformity. Transportation conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle emission budgets that are established in control strategy SIPSand maintenanceplans.state rules have not been approved. See Wall,265 F.3d 426 (upholding this interpretation); See also 60

### FR 62748 (December 7, 1995, Tampa, Florida). Kentucky submitted its transportation conformity SIP for 1997 8-hour ozone and particulate matter NAAQS on December 3 1, 2008. EPA proposed approval on December 4,2009 (74 

### FR 63697) for Kentucky's transportation conformity SIP. EPA did not receive any comments for its proposed approval of Kentucky's transportation conformity SZP and is in the process of finalizing its action for this submission. Kentucky did not have a Federally-approved transportation conformity SIPfor the 1-hour NAAQS, and thus approval of Kentucky's December 31,2008, submittal will establish Kentucky' s first Federally-approved transportation conformity S IP. However, conformity analyses are performed pursuant to EPA's Federal conformity rules. NSR Requirements. EPA has also determinedthat areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenanceof the standard without a part 

### D NSR program in effect since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation. The 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 (Part D NSR) Requirementsfor Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment." Kentucky has demonstratedthat Northern Kentucky (as part of the tri-state Cincinnati-HamiltonArea) will be able to maintain the standard without a part 

### D NSR program in effect, and therefore, Kentucky need not have a fully-approved part 

### D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignationrequest. However, Kentucky currently has a fully-approvedpart D NSR program in place. Kentucky has a fully-approved part D NSR program. Kentucky's PSD program will become effective 

### in Northern Kentucky uponredesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

### FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorraine, Ohio (61 

### FR 20458,20469-70, May 7, 1996);Louisville, Kentucky (66 

### FR 53665, October 23,2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 

### FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996). Thus, Northern Kentucky has satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA.

b. Northern Kentuckyhas a fullyapproved applicable SIPunder section 

### 11O(k)ofthe 

### CAA. If EPA issues a final approval of the base year emissions inventories,EPA will have fully approved the applicable Kentucky SIP for the Kentucky portion of the tri-state CincinnatiHamilton 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, under section 110(k)of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request, see Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania GrowthAlliance v. Browner, 144F.3d 984,989-90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426, plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunctionwith a redesignation action. See 68

### FR 25426 (May 12,2003)and citations therein. Following passage of the CAA of 1970, Kentucky has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved at various times, provisions addressingthe various 1-hour ozone NAAQS SIP elements applicablein the CincinnatiHamilton Area (65 

### FR 37879, June 19,2000). As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110elements not connected with nonattainmentplan submissions and not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. EPA also believes that since the part D subpart 2 requirements did not become due prior to submissionof the redesignation request, they also are therefore not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 3 2375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); 68

### FR 25424,25427 (May 12,2003)(redesignation of the St. Louis-East St. Louis Area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS). With the approval of the emissions inventory, EPA will have approved all Part 

### D subpart 1 requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation.



### Criteria 

### (3)

# - Theair quality improvement in the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997

### 8-hour OzoneNAAQS Nonattainment Area isdue topermanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting fiom implementation ofthe SIP andapplicable Federalair pollution control regulations and other permanent and en forceable reductions. Measured reductions 

### in ozone concentrations in and around Northern Kentucky are largely attributable to reductions from emission sources 

### -- in Kentucky as well as Ohio and Indiana -- of VOC and NO,, which are precursors in the formation of ozone. See 75 

### FR 8879. EPA believes that Kentucky has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the tri-state Cincinnati-HamiltonArea is due to permanent 

### and enforceable reductions 

### in emissions resulting from implementationof the SIP, Federal measures, and other state adopted measures. Additionally, new emissions control programs for fuels and motor vehicles will help ensure a continued decrease in emissions throughout the region. The followingis a discussion of permanent 

### and enforceable measures that have been implemented in the Northern Kentucky Area. 

### i. Stationary Source 

### NOx Rules. Kentuckyhas developedrules governing the control of NO, emissions from EGUs, major non-EGU industrial boilers, major cement kilns, and internal combustion engines. EPA approved Kentucky's rules as fulfilling Phase I and Phase I1of the NOx

### SIP Call on October 23,2009 (74 

### FR 54755). Kentucky began complying with Phase 

### I of this rule in 2004. Compliance with Phase 

### I1 of the SP Call, which requires the control NOx emissions from large internal combustion engines, began in Kentucky in 2007, and resulted in a 41 percent NO, reduction from 1995 to 2008 levels. 

### ii. Federal Emission Control Measures. Reductions 

### in VOC and NOxemissions 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. Tier2 Emission Standards for Vehiclesand Gasoline Sulfur Standards. These emission control requirements result in lower VOC and NO, emissions from new cars and light duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles. The Federal rules were phased in between 2004 and 2009. 

### EPA has estimated that, by the end of the phase-in period, the following vehicle NO, emission reductions will occur nationwide: passenger cars (light duty vehicles) (77 percent); light duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility vehicles (86percent); and, larger sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks (69 to 95 percent). VOC emission reductions are expectedto range from 12to 18percent, depending on vehicle class, over the same period. Some of these emission reductions occurred by the attainment years (2007-2009) and additional emission reductions will occur during the maintenance period. Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. EPA issued this rule in July 2000. This rule includes standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel, which went into effect in 2004. A second phase took effect in 2007 which further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur contentto 15 ppm, leadingto additional reductions in combustionNOxand VOC emissions. This rule is expected to achieve a 95 percent reduction in NO, emissions from diesel trucks and busses. 34

### Non-Road Diesel Rule. EPA issued this rule in 2004. This rule applies to diesel engines used in industries, such as construction, agriculture, and mining. It is estimated that compliance with this rule will cut NO, emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to 90 percent. This rule is currently achieving emission reductions,but will not be fully implemented until 2010. 

### iii. Control Measures in Upwind Areas. On October 27, 

### 1998 (63 

### FR 57356), EPA issued a NO, SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and 22 states to reduce emissions of NO,. Affected states were required to comply with Phase 1of the SIP Call beginning in 2004, and Phase I1 beginning in 2007. The reduction in NO, emissions has resulted in lower concentrations of transported ozone entering the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Emission reductions resulting from regulations developed in response to the NOx

### SIP Call 

### are permanent and enforceable. Additional measures implemented by the Commonwealthof Kentucky which are providing emission reduction benefits for the Northern Kentucky Area. All new major VOC sources locating in Kentucky are subject to RACT; All major modifications to existing major VOC sources are subject to RACT requirements; Implementationof a program to enhance inspection of stationary sources to ensure emission control equipment is functioning properly; Requirements for Stage I1 vapor recovery; Federal Motor Vehicle Control Standards apply in Kentucky; Reformulated gasoline;Federal controls on VOC content for Architectural and Maintenance Paints, Auto Body Shops, and Consumer Products; Open burning ban during summer ozone seasonfor Northern Kentucky; and PSD requirements. 

### In addition to the measures listed above, further reductions will be achieved throughout the implementationof new federal regulations to further control the emission of HazardousAir Pollutants that are VOC and the emission control programs being imposed 

### as a result of enforcement agreements with some sources 

### in the area. The reductions cannot be quantified at this time, but will be reflected in future triennial assessments. Regarding point source emissions for the Kentucky portion of the tri-state CincinnatiHamilton Area, Duke Power's East Bend plant located in Boone County operates a wet lime scrubber, which controls sulfur dioxide emissions; and a modified furnace designed with low NO, burners and selective catalytic reduction to reduce NO, emissions.



### Criteria (4) 

# - Thearea has a fully approved maintenance planpursuant to section 

### 175A ofthe CAA. In conjunction with its request to redesignate Northern Kentucky (as part of the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area) to attainment, Kentucky submitted
a 

### SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after the effective date of redesignation to attainment and commits to submitting a revised 10year maintenance plan eight years after the redesignation is approved if they are still required to do so at that time.

### a. What is required in a maintenance plan? Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenanceplan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainmentto attainment. Under section 175A,the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State of Kentucky must submit a revised maintenance plan, which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation as EPA deems necessaryto assure prompt correction of any future 1997 8-hour ozone violations. Section 175Aof the CAA sets forth the requirements for maintenance plans for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The Calcagni Memorandumprovides additional guidance on the content of a maintenanceplan. The Calcagni Memorandum explains that 

### an ozone maintenanceplan should address five elements: the attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. As is discussed more fully below, EPA proposes to find that Kentucky's maintenanceplan includes all the necessary components and is approvable as part of the redesignation request.

b.

### Attainment Emissions Inventory In coordinationwith Ohio and Indiana, Kentucky selected 2008 as "the attainment year" for the purposes of demonstrating maintenance of the 1997 %hour ozone NAAQS. The attainment inventory identifies the level of emissions in the area, which is sufficient to attain the1997 8-hour ozone standard. Kentucky began development of the attainment inventoryby first developing a baseline emissions inventory for Northern Kentucky. The year 2008 was chosen as the base year for developing a comprehensive ozone precursor emissions inventory for which projected emissions could be developed for 201 1,2015,2018 and 2020. The projected inventory estimates emissions forward to 2020, which meets the 10-year interval required in Section 175A of the CAA. Nonroad mobile emissions were generated using EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM),with the following exceptions: recreational motorboat populations and spatial surrogateswere updated; emissions estimates were developed for commercial marine vessels, aircraft, and railroads as these three nonroad categories are not included in NMIM. On-road mobile source emissions were calculated using EPA's MOBILE6.2 emission factors model. The 2008 VOC and NO, emissions, as well as the emissions for other years, for Northern Kentucky
were developed consistent with EPA guidance, and are summarized in Tables 

### 3 and 4 in the following subsection.



### c. 

### Maintenance Demonstration The January 29, 2010, redesignation request includes a maintenanceplan for Northern Kentucky. The maintenanceplan: (i) Shows maintenanceof the 1997 8-hour ozone standardby providing information to support the demonstration that current and future emissions of VOC and NO, remain at or below attainment year 2008 emissions levels. The year 2008 was chosen as the attainment year because it is one of the years in the most recent three-year period (2007- 2009) during which the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. A maintenance demonstrationneed not be based on modeling. See 

### Wall 38v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6h 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)). (ii) Uses 2008 as the attainment year and includes future emission inventory projections for 2011,2015,2018,and 2020. (iii) Identifies an "out year," at least 10years (and beyond) after the time necessary for EPA to review and approve the redesignation request. Per 40 CFR part 93, 

### NO, and VOC MVEBs were established for the last year (2020) of the maintenance plan. Additionally, Kentucky chose, through interagency consultation, to establish MVEBs for 2015 for NO, and VOC. See section 

### VII below. (iv) Provides the following actual and projected emissions inventories, 

### in tons per day (tpd) for Northern Kentucky. See Tables 3 and 4.

### Table 3. 

### Northern Kentucky 

### VOC Emissions (tpd) 2008

I I 

### Point 

### Total 4.79 

# I 4.42 

# I 4.65 

### ( 4.62 4.93 I I I I I

I I I I 1 

### Area 2011

Campbell 

### Point 2015

Boone 0.28

Boone 0.29 

# 1 0.30 

# 1 0.31 

# / 0.31

Campbell

Kenton

- - 

## - 2018
2.81

8.41

L 

### Boone Campbell

Kenton 

# - -*? 

## - -. - 2020
2.90 

# 1 3.04 

# 1 3.14 

# 1 3.20

4.34 7.88 ' 

### 20.aNonroad

"Calculated using MOBILE6.2 4.00 2.29 3.85 -! 

### -. 8.45 4.28 7.79 

### 2032
Boone Campbell

Kenton 8.50 8.50

3.63 2.04 3.39 8.50 4.20 7.66 2036



## - Mobile* 5.07 1.51 

### 1.95

3.17 1.74 2.85



### -- I



### 4.84 1.41 1.87 4.20 7.66 

### 2036

3 .04 1.62 2.67 4.20 7.66 

### 2036
4.55 1.29 1.76

2.96 1.55 2.56 - 

# -- 

# - 4.44 1.25 1.74 4.36 1.22 1.73

### Table 4. Northern Kentucky 

### NO, Emissions (tons per day) 

# I Point 

# I Boone 

### 23.27 24.04 

## 1 25.08 

## 1 25.91 

## 1 26.47 

# 1 Campbell
I L I 1 1 

### 0.02 Kenton
I I

Boone Campbell

Kenton 

## - - 0.02 0.04 

### Point

### Total

Kenton 

# - 

# -

Northern 

### Kentucky Total 0.03 

# 1 0.03 

# 1 0.03 

# 1 0.03


### Area 

### 2333
5.02 1.32 4.06 

### 10.40

Boone Campbell

Kenton

Kentucky is using emissions inventoryprojections for the years 

### 2011,2015,2018 and 

### 2020 to demonstrate maintenance. The Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana (OKI) Regional Council of 

### 0.02
2653 24.09



### Nonroad

7.33 

# -. 25.97


### 5.02 1.31 4.04 1037
Boone Campbell 

# t 8.53 4.88 8.37 0.03

2 

### 6.81

- -- - - - - -> . 

# t -, 

# -- -

-* A A 

### 0.03

5.03 1.30 4.02 

### 1035
1 1.02 5.34

6.64 3.74 6.33 8.27 54.72

- - 

### ~obile* 

# - 6.15

-

"Calculated using MOB

### lLE6.2 5.03 1.30 4.02 

### 103
10.47 5.00 5 .03 1.30 4.02 

### 10.35



### 2228 5.91

3.45 1.81 3.01 4.63 2.54 4.23 5.75

3.90 2.09 3.47 9.48 4.34 9.77 4.57
20.49 

### 9.60 4.43
19.94 19.57Governments calculated onroad emissions for 2011,201 5,201 8 and 2020 using the MOBILE6.2 emissions model in addition to using this model to calculate the 2008 base year emissions. Emissions estimates for the remaining source categories were based on future year inventories developed by Kentucky and the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO). Specifically, for Kentucky's submission, LADCO developed the emissions and projections for
area and nonhighway mobiles sources. Kentucky used information in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database and Kentucky's Emissions Inventory Systems database to determine the point source emissions. A comparison was made between employment projections and earnings projections using the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis data. Kentucky's submission provides detailed documentation for how the emissions were developed for this submission. EPA has reviewed this information and has determined that the emissions were developed using methodology that is consistent with EPA policy and guidance. 

### Considerationof 

### CAIR for Maintenance Demonstration. The emission projections show that Ohio, Indiana (75 

### FR 8882-8884) ,and Kentucky do not expect emissions in the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area to exceed the level of the 2008 attainmentyear inventory during the maintenanceperiod, even without implementationof CAIR (see also discussionbelow). As shown in Table 

### 5, VOC and NO, emissions in the entire tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area are projected to decreaseby 30.41 tpd and 47.00 tpd, respectively, between 2008 and 2020.

### Table 5. 

### Comparison of 2008,2015 and 2020

### VOC and

### NOx Emissions for the Entire Tri-State Cincinnati-HamiltonArea (tpd)

To further support the maintenanceplan demonstrations for the tri-state CincinnatiHamilton Area, LADCO performed a regional modeling analysis to address the effect of the recent court decision vacating CAR This analysis is documented in LADCO's "Regional Air Quality Analyses for Ozone, 

### PM2.5,and Regional Haze: Final Technical Support Document (Supplement), September 

### 12,2008;" see the discussion in EPA's proposed approval of the Ohio and Indiana maintenanceplans for the tri-state Cincinnati-HamiltonArea. See 75 

### FR 8883- 8884. LADCO produced a base year inventory for 2005 and 

### future year inventoriesfor 2009, 2012, and 2018. To estimate future electric generatingunits (EGU) NO, emissions without implementationof CAIR, LADCO projected 2007 EGU NO, emissions for all states in the modeling domain based on Energy Information Administration growth rates by state (North American Electric Reliability Corporation region) and fuel type for the years 2009,2012 and 2018. The assumed 2007-2018 growth rates were 8.8 percent for Illinois, Iowa, Missouri and Wisconsin; 13.5percent for Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio; and 15.1percent forMinnesota. Emissions were adjusted by applying legally enforceable controls, e.g., consent decree or rule. Ozone modeling performed by LADCO supports the conclusion that the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area will maintain the standard throughout the maintenance period. Peak modeled ozone levels in the area for 2009,2012 and 2018 are 0.082 ppm, 0.081 ppm, and 0.078 ppm, respectively. These projected ozone levels were modeled applying only legally enforceable controls; e.g.,consent decrees, rules, the NOx

### SIP Call, federal motor vehicle control programs (FMVCP), etc. Because these programs will remain in place, emission levels, and therefore ozone levels, would not be expected to increase significantlybetween 2018 and 2020. EPA has considered the relationship of the maintenance plans to the reductions required pursuant to CAR. CAIR was remanded to EPA, and the process of developing a replacement rule is ongoing. However, the remand of CARdoes not alter the requirements of the NO, 

### SIP Call, and Kentucky has demonstrated maintenance without any additional CAlR requirements (beyond those required by the NOxSIP Call). Therefore, EPA believes that Kentucky's demonstration of maintenance under sections 175Aand 107(d)(3)(E)is valid. The NOx

### SIP Call requires states to make si@icant, specific emissions reductions. It also provided a mechanism, the NOxBudget Trading Program, which states could use to achieve those reductions. When EPA promulgated CAIR, it discontinued (starting in 2009) the NOx Budget Trading Program, 40 CFR 5l.l2l(r),but created another mechanism, the CARozone season trading program, which states could use to meet their 

### SIP Call obligations, 70FR 25289- 90. EPA notes that a number of states, when submitting SIPrevisions to require sources to participate in the CAIR ozone season trading program, removed the SIP provisions that required sources to participatein the NOxBudget Trading Program. 

### In addition, because the provisions 44of CAIR, including the ozone season NO, trading program, remain in place during the remand, EPA is not currently administering the NO, Budget Trading Program. Nonetheless, all states, regardless of the current status of their regulations that previously required participation in the NO, Budget Trading Program, will remain subject to all of the requirements in the NOxSIP Call
even if the existing CAIR ozone season trading program is withdrawn or altered. 

### In addition, the anti-backsliding provisions of 40 CFR 

### 51.905(f) specifically provide that the provisions of the NO, 

### SIP Call, including the statewideNOxemission budgets, continue to apply after revocation of the 1-hour standard. All NO, SIPCall states have SIPSthat currently satisfy their obligations under the SIP Call, the 

### SIP Call reduction requirements are being met, and EPA will continue to enforce the requirements of the NO, SIPCall even after any response to the CAIR remand. For these reasons, EPA believes that regardless of the status of the CAIR program, the NOxSIP Call requirements can be relied upon in demonstrating maintenance. Here, Kentucky has demonstrated maintenancebased in part on those requirements.

d. Monitoring Network There are currently eleven monitors measuring ozone in the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area (three in Northern Kentucky and one in the remainder in the Ohio portion of this Area). Kentucky has committed, in the maintenance plan, to continue operation of the three monitors in Northern Kentucky in compliance with 40 CFR part 

### 58, and has addressed the requirement for monitoring. Ohio has made a similar commitment in their redesignation and maintenance plan submission to EPA for this Area. There is no monitor in the Indiana portion of this Area.

### e. VeriJicationof Continued Attainment 

### The Commonwealth of Kentucky has the legal authority to enforce and implementthe requirements of the ozone maintenanceplan. This includes the authority to adopt, implement and enforce any subsequent emissions control contingencymeasures determined to be necessary to correct future ozone attainmentproblems. Kentucky will track the progress of the maintenanceplan by performing future reviews of emissions inventory for Northern Kentuckyusing the latest emissions factors, models and methodologies. For these periodic inventories, Kentucky will review the assumptionsmade for the purpose of the maintenance demonstration concerningprojected growth of activity levels. If 

### any of these assumptions appear to have changed substantially,Kentucky commits to re-project emissions.



### f. ContingencyPlan 

### The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175Aof the CAA 

### requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as

### EPA deemsnecessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measuresto be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a time limit for actionby the state. A state should also identify specificindicators to be used to determinewhen the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirementthat a statewill implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutantthat were contained in the SIP

### before redesignationof the area to attainment in accordancewith section 175A(d). 46

### Inthe January 29,2010, submittal, Kentucky affirms that all programs instituted by the Commonwealth and EPA will remain enforceable, and that sources are prohibited from reducing emissions controls following the redesignationof the area. Kentucky commits in their submission to provide an update for the maintenanceplan 8 years after formal redesignation 

### in accordance with section 175A(b)of the 

### CAA should this requirement remain applicablefor this Area. As required by section 175Aof the 

### CAA, Kentucky has adopted a contingency plan to address possible future 8-hour ozone air quality problems. 

### In the event that 

### a measured value of the fourth highest maximum is 0.085 ppm or greater

### in any portion of the maintenance area in a single ozone season, or if periodic emissions inventory updates reveal excessive or unanticipated growth greater than ten percent in ozone precursor emissions, the Commonwealthwill evaluate existing control measures to see if any further emission reductions shouldbe implemented at that time. 

### In the event of a monitored violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

### in the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area, Kentucky commitsto adopt, within nine months, one or more of the following contingency measures to re-attain the standard. A violation of the standard occurs when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is equal to or greater than 0.085 ppm. All regulatory programs will be adopted and implemented within 18months after the triggering monitored violation.Implementationof a program to require additional emissions reductions on stationary sources; Implementationof fuel programs, including incentives for alternative fuels; Restriction of certain roads or lanes to, or construction of such roads or lands for use by passenger buses or high-occupancy vehicles; Trip-reduction ordinances; Employer-based transportation management plans, including incentives; Programs to limit or restrict vehicle us in downtown areas, or other areas of emissions concentration, particularly during periods of peak use; Programs for new construction and major reconstructions of paths or tracks for use by pedestrians or by non-motorized vehicles when economically feasible and in the public interest. Kentucky also reserves the right in its submission to implement other contingency measures if
new control programs shouldbe developed and advantageous for the Area. EPA believes that 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 contingencyplan. Thus EPA proposes to find that the maintenanceplan 

### SIPrevision submittedby the Commonwealth of Kentucky for Northern Kentucky meets the requirements of section 175Aof the CAA and is approvable.

### VII. What is EPA's Analysis of Kentucky's Proposed State

### NO, and

### VOC 

### MVEBs for Northern Kentucky? Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPSand maintenanceplans in ozone areas. These control strategy SIPS

### (RFP and attainment demonstration) and maintenance plans establishMVEBs for criteria pollutants andlor their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. Per 40 

### CFR part 93, an MVEB is established for the last year of the maintenance plan. A state may adopt MVEBs for other years as well. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions 

### in the maintenance demonstration that is allocatedto highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. See40 CFR 93.101. 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. After interagency consultation with the transportation partners for the tri-state CincinnatiHamilton Area, Kentucky has elected to develop MVEBs for VOC and NO, for Northern Kentucky separate fromthe remainder of the tri-state Cincinnati-HamiltonArea. MVEBs for the remainder of the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area is addressed in the Ohio and Indiana submittals. Kentucky is developing these MVEBs for Northern Kentucky, as required, for the last year of its maintenance plan, 2020, an interim year, 2015. The MVEBs for 2015 and 2020 reflect the total on-road emissions for those individual years, plus an allocation from the availableNO, and VOC safety margin for each year. Under 40 CFR 93.101, the term safety margin is the differencebetween the attainmentlevel (from all sources) and the projected levelof emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The safety margin can be allocated to the transportation sector; however, the total emissions must remain below the attainment level. These MVEBs and allocation from the safety margin were developed in consultation with the transportation partners and were added to account for uncertainties in population growth, changes in model VMT and new emission factor models. For 2015, the safety margin added to the mobile VOC emissions 2 tpd, and the safety margin added to the mobile NO, emissions is 

### 3 tpd. For 2020, the safety margin added to the mobile VOC emissions is 

### 3 tpd, and the safety margin added to the mobile NOxemissions is 5 tpd. The resulting NOxand VOC MVEBs for Northern Kentucky are defined 

### in Table 6 below. 

### Table 6. 

### Northern Kentucky 1997 

### 8-HourOzone 

### NOxand VOC 

### MVEBs (Summer season tons per day) 

# I VOC 9.76 10.07 

# 1
As mentioned above, Kentucky has chosen to allocate a portion of the available safety marginto the 2015 and 2020 

### NO, and VOC MVEBs. The following tables identify the original NO, and VOC safety margins that were available in the tri-state Cincinnati Area for the applicable years. It shouldbe noted that the safety margin allocation from above is not reflected in the followingtable so any further allocation of the available safety margin in the Kentucky portion of this area will be quantified at the time of the allocation should the Commonwealth elect to allocate additional safety margin to the MVEBs in the Northern Kentucky Area. Table 7 and Table 8 below detail the available safety margin for the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area prior to allocationsprovided for MVEBs for Northern Kentucky and the remainder of the tri-state Area. Kentucky's has remaining safety margin to allocate. Should Kentucky decide to allocate further safety margin to the MVEB, the Commonwealth will do so through a subsequent SIPrevisions which will identify the available safety margin for allocation and any additional allocation.


### Table7. 

## -SafetyMargin for 

### VOC for Tri-stateCincinnati-HamiltonArea (tons per day)



# I Dearborn. 

### IN 

# I 7.49 

# 1 6.86 

# 1 6.96 

# 1 12.18 

# 1 12.08 

## 1 Boone. KY 

## I 20.29 

## 1 19.26 

## 1 19.02 

## 1 1.03 

## 1 1.27 VOC Butler, OH Clermont, OH Clinton, OH Hamilton, OH Warren, OH Safety Margin



### 2015 2.80 2.39 1.38 12.41 3.56 Safety Margin



### 2020 3.01 2.77 1.81 14.21 3.94 

### 2008 26.66 15.51 6.83 69.25 18.48
Campbell, 

### KY Kenton, 

### KY Combined Total 

### 2015 23.85 12.94 5.45 56.80 14.92

8.42 14.85 187.78 

### 2020 23.64 12.54 5.02 55.00 14.54

7.53 13.58 161.19 7.28 13.37 157.37 0.89 1.27 37.91 - 1.14 1.48 41.71

### Table 8.

# -Safety Margin for 

### VOC for Tri-state Cincinnati-HamiltonArea (tons per day) 

# 1 Safety 

# 1 Safety 

# 1



# I Hamilton. OH 

# 1 88.37 

# 1 73.30 

# 1 65.16 

# 1 29.41 

# 1 37.55 

# 1 NOx Butler, OH Clermont, OH Clinton. 

### OH 

# 1 Dearborn. 

### IN 

# 1 33.09 

# 1 32.07 

# 1 32.56 

# 1 0.90 

# 1 0.41 

# 1 Margin

2015 8.50 -31.80

2.47 Warren, OH Margin 2020 11.93 -32.13

3.34 2008 40.52 39.73 6.3 1
22.26 Boone, 

### KY 20 15 30.49 59.76 3.84

Campbell, 

### KY Kenton, 

### KY

Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposingto approve the 2015 and 2020 MVEBs for VOC and NO, for Northern Kentucky because 

### EPA has determined that the Area maintains the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the emissions at the levels of the budgets. Once the MVEBs for Northern Kentucky (the subject of this rulemaking) are approved or found adequate (whichever is done first), they must be used for future conformity determinations. See section 

### VIII for more informationon the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the proposed NOx and VOC MVEBs for the years 2015 and 2020 forNorthern Kentucky. 2020 27.06 59.12 2.97
13.32
47.84

Combined Total



### VIII. What Is the Statusof EPA's Adequacy Determination for the Proposed

### NO, and VOC MVEBs for the years 2015 and 2020 for Northern Kentucky? 11.56 19.79 10.88
44.5 1

309.47 8.43 14.43 8.94
44.43

280.15 1 1.38

7.48 12.81 3.33

262.47 - --- 3.41

- 3.13 5.36 ---- 4.08 6.98 30.24 46.95Under section 176(c)of the CAA, new transportation projects, such as the construction of
new highways, must "conform" to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the state's air qualityplan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. "Conformity" to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. 

### If a transportation plan does not "conform," most new projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. The regional emissions analysis is one, but not the only, requirement for implementing transportation conformity. Transportation conformity is a requirement for nonattainment and maintenance areas. Maintenance areas are areas that were previously nonattainment for a particular NAAQS but have since been redesignated to attainment with a maintenanceplan for that NAAQS. When reviewing submitted "control strategy" SIPSor maintenance plans containing MVEBs, EPA may affirmatively find the MVEB contained therein "adequate" for use in determining transportation conformity. Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB must be used by state and Federal agencies in determiningwhether proposed transportationprojects "conform" to the SIP as required by section 176(c)of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining "adequacy" of 

### an 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, a public comment period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially outlined in EPA's

### May 14, 1999, guidance, "Conformity Guidance on Implementationof March 2, 1999, Conformity CourtDecision." This guidance was finalized in the Transportation

### Conformity RuleAmendments for the "New 8-Hour Ozone and PM25National Ambient Air Quality Standardsand Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; transportation conformityrule amendments 

### - Responseto Court Decision and Additional Rule Change," on July 1,2004(69 

### FR 40004). 

### Additional informationon the adequacy process for MVEBs is available in the proposed rule entitled, 'Transportation ConformityRule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Changes," 68 

### FR 38974,38984 (June 30,2003). As discussedearlier,Kentucky's maintenance plan submissionincludes VOC and NOx stateMVEBs for Northern Kentucky for the years 2015 and 2020. EPA reviewed both the VOCs and NO, stateMVEBs through the adequacyprocess. The Kentucky SIP submission, including the Northern KentuckyVOC and NO, MVEBs was open for public comment on EPA's adequacy website on February 3,2010, found at: http://www.epa.nov/otau/stateresources/transconf/currsi~s. 

### htm. 

### TheEPA public comment period on adequacy of the 2015 and 2020VOC and NO, state MVEBs for Northern Kentucky closed on March 5,2010. EPA did not receive any commentson the adequacy of the MVEBs,
nor did EPA receive any requests for the 

### SIP submittal. EPA provided a separate adequacy posting for the MVEBs in 

### associationwith the Ohio and Indiana portions of this Area. The status of the adequacy process for the Ohio and IndianaMVEBs is discussed in 

### EPA's separate actionrelated tothose areas (see 75 

### FR 8871, 8886; February 26,2010). EPA intendsto make its determinationon the adequacyof the 2015 and 2020 MVEBs for Northern Kentucky for transportation conformity purposesby completing the adequacy process that was startedon February 3,2010, in 

### coordination with the finalrule for thisredesignation 54request and maintenance plan. After EPA finds the 2015 and 2020 MVEBs, adequate or approves them, the new MVEBs for VOC and NOxmust be used, for future transportation conformity determinations. For required regional emissions analysis years that involve the years 2015 through 2019, the applicable budgets for the purposes of conducting transportation conformity will be the new 2015 MVEBs. For required regional emissions analysis years that involve 2020 or beyond, the applicable budgets will be the new 2020 MVEBs for Northern Kentucky. The 2015 and 2020 MVEBs are defined in section VII of this proposed rulemaking.



### IX. What is EPA's Analysis of the Proposed 2008 

### Base Year Emissions Inventory for Northern Kentucky? As discussed above, section 172(c)(3)of the CAA requires areas to submit a base year emissions inventory. As part of Kentucky's request to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the tri-state Cincinnati-HamiltonArea, the Commonwealth submitted 2008 base year emissions inventory to meet this requirement. Emissions contained in the submittal cover the general source categoriesof point sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and non-road mobile
sources. All emission summaries were accompaniedby source-specific descriptions of emission calculation procedures and sources of input data. On-road mobile emissions were preparedby the OK1using the MOBILE6.2 emissions model. Kentucky's submittal documents 2008 emissions in the Kentucky portion of the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area in units of tons per summer day. Table 9 below provides a summary of the 2008 summer day emissions of VOC and NOxfor Northern Kentucky.Northern Kentucky 2008 Summer Day Emissions for 

### VOC and 

### NOx (tons per day)

Boone 23.27 Campbell

Kenton 0.04 

### NO, VOC



### 2333 4.79 

## - Boone
I I

I I Campbell 5.34 1.5

### 1 

# 1 Campbell I I 5.02
Kenton 8.41 

# 1 1.32

I I

I I Campbell 4.88 2.29 

# 1 4.34 

# 1 4.06

Kenton

I

Kenton 

# I 7.88

Boone



### EPA is proposing to approve this 2008 base year inventory as meeting the section 

# 1 7.33

172(c)(3)emissions inventoryrequirement. 1.95
8.53



### X. What are EPA's Proposed Actions? 4.00



### EPA is proposing to: (1) to determine that the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on quality assured monitoring data from 2007- 2009; (2) approve Kentucky's redesignation request for Boone, Campbell and Kenton Countiesin Kentucky as part of the tri-state Cincinnati Area; 

### (3) approve Kentucky's January 29, 2010 

### SIPrevision providing the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Northern Kentucky, including the MVEBs for NO, and VOC for the years 2015 and 2020; and (4) approve the 2008 emissions inventory for Northern Kentucky as meeting the requirements of the CAA. EPA's proposed approval is based on the Commonwealth's demonstration that the 

### plan meets the requirements of section 175Aof the CAA. After evaluating the Commonwealth's redesignation request, EPA believes that, upon final approval of the emissions inventory that
was also submitted, the request meets the redesignation criteria set forth in CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)and 175A. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the redesignation of the Kentucky portion of the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area from nonattainment to attainmentfor the 1997 %hour ozone NAAQS. The final approval of this redesignation request would change the official designation for the Kentucky portion of the tri-state Cincinnati-HamiltonArea from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Final approval would also establish 2015 and 2020 NO, and VOC MVEBs for Northern Kentucky to use for the purposed of implementing transportation conformity. EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's 2008 base year emissions inventory for the Kentucky portion of the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area as meeting the requirements of section 172 (c)(3) EPA is taking action onthe redesignation requests, emission inventories and maintenanceplans for the Ohio and Indiana portions (as a part of the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton Area) in a separate but coordinated action. In this action, EPA is also describing the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the
new 2015 and 2020 MVEBs that are contained in the 1997-8-hour ozone maintenanceplan for Northern Kentucky in accordancewith 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1). Within 24 months from theeffective date of EPA's adequacy finding forthe MVEBs, or the effective date for the final rule for this action, whichever is earlier, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new NO, and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 

### 40 

### CFR 93.104(e). EPA intents to conclude it adequacy process for the Northern Kentucky MVEBs with its final rulemaking for this proposed action. MVEBs for the Ohio and Indiana portions of this Area are included in the Ohio and Indiana submittals, and are being addressed through EPA's separate action for those submissions. 

### XI. Statutory 

### and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of 

### an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenanceplan under section 107(d)(3)(E)are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements,but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained 

### in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 

### CFR 52.02(a). Thus, 

### in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed actions merely approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For these reasons, these proposed actionsare not a "significant regulatory action" subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 

### FR 51735, October 4, 1993); do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

### (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

### et seq.); do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4); do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 

### (64 

### FX 43255, August 10, 1999); are not an economically significant regulatory actionbased on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 

### FR 19885, April 23, 1997); are not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 1321 1 (66 

### FR 28355, May 22,2001); are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d)of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995(15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59

### FR 7629, February 16, 1994).In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specifiedby Executive Order 

### 13

### 175 (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.

### List of Subjects: 40 CFR Part 

### 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporationby reference, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.



### 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 

### U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: 

### MAY 

# - 3 2010 A. Stanley Meiburg Acting Regional Administrator, Region4.