Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 19895

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[R05–OAR–2005–OH–0004; FRL–7899–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of 

Cincinnati to Attainment of the 1-Hour 

Ozone Standard; Removal of Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance Programs 

for the Cincinnati and Dayton Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The State of Ohio has 

requested the EPA to parallel process an 

ozone redesignation request and a 

number of revisions to Ohio’s air quality 

control plan. We are proposing to 

determine that the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area has attained the 1-hour ozone 

standard for the entire period of 1996–

2004 based on 1-hour ozone monitoring 

data demonstrating attainment of the 

standard during that period. As a result, 

certain attainment demonstration 

requirements, along with certain other 

related requirements of part D of title I 

of the Clean Air Act, are not applicable 

to the Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area. We are proposing to 

approve Ohio’s request to redesignate 

the Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area to attainment of the 1-

hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). We are 

proposing to approve Ohio’s revision of 

the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan, 

previously approved by us on June 19, 

2000, for the Ohio portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area. This update 

to the plan extends the timeframe for 

demonstrating continued maintenance 

of the 1-hour ozone standard through 

2015, and demonstrates that the 1-hour 

ozone standard may be maintained in 

this area even with the termination of 

the vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

(I/M) program in the Ohio portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area. We are 

notifying the public that we believe that 

the revised motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of 

Nitrogen (NOX) for the Ohio portion of 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area are 

adequate for conformity purposes and 

are approvable as part of the revised 

ozone maintenance plan for this area. 

We are proposing to approve new VOC 

emission control regulations for various 

sources in the Ohio portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area and to 

approve negative source declarations for 

some source categories for this area as 

long as the State meets certain 

conditions. We are proposing approval 

of periodic emission inventories for the 

Cincinnati area. 

Additionally, we are proposing to find 

that Ohio has demonstrated that 

termination of the I/M program in the 

Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area will not interfere with the 

attainment and maintenance of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS in this area. 

Similarly, we are proposing to find that 

Ohio has demonstrated that termination 

of the I/M program in the Dayton area 

will not interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS in this area provided that the 

State meets certain conditions.

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 16, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID No. R05–OAR–2005–

OH–0004, by one of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Agency Web site: http://

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. RME, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comments 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Once in the 

system, select ‘‘quick search,’’ then key 

in the appropriate RME docket 

identification number. Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.

Fax: (312) 886–5824. 

Mail: You may send written 

comments to: John Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Hand Delivery: Deliver your 

comments to: John Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, 18th Floor, Chicago, Illinois. 

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 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

RME ID No. R05–OAR–2005–OH–0004. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, including any 

personal information provided, unless a 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through RME, regulations.gov, 

or e-mail. The EPA RME Web site and 

the Federal regulations.gov Web site are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through RME or 

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 include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comments and with 

any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comments due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification or replacement of 

comments, EPA may not be able to 

consider your comments. Electronic 

files should avoid the use of special 

characters, any form of encryption, and 

should be free of any defects or viruses. 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document.

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket for this proposed rule 

are listed in the RME index at http://

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in RME or 

in hard copy at Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and 

Radiation Division, 18th floor, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604. (Please telephone Edward Doty 

at (312) 886–6057 or contact him 

through his e-mail, 

doty.edward@epa.gov, before visiting 

the Region 5 office).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6057, 

Doty.Edward@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

following, whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or 

‘‘our’’ are used, we mean the United 

States Environmental Protection 

Agency.

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

19896 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

A. Does This Proposed Action Apply to 

me? 

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document 

and Other Related Information? 

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit 

Comments? 

D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare my 

Comments for EPA? 

II. Proposed Redesignation of the Cincinnati 

Area to Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS 

A. What Is the Background for This 

Proposed Action? 

B. What Are the Redesignation Review 

Criteria? 

C. Has the State of Ohio and the Cincinnati 

Area Complied With the Redesignation 

Review Criteria? 

1. Criterion (1): The Area Must Be 

Attaining the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

2. Criteria (2) and (5): The Area Must Have 

a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 

110(k); and the Area Must Meet All 

Applicable Requirements Under Section 

110 and Part D 

a. Section 110 Requirements 

b. Transport of Ozone Precursors to 

Downwind Areas 

c. Part D General Requirements for 

Nonattainment Areas 

d. Section 172(c) Requirements 

e. Section 176 Conformity Requirements 

f. Subpart 2 Section 182 Requirements 

1. 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory 

2. Periodic Emission Inventory Updates 

3. Emission Statement Requirements 

4. Fifteen Percent Rate-Of-Progress Plan 

Requirements 

5. VOC RACT Requirements 

6. Reasonably Available Control Measures 

(RACM) 

7. Stage II Vapor Recovery Requirements 

8. Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) 

Requirements 

9. NOX Emission Control Requirements 

g. Conclusions Regarding Criteria (2) and 

(5) 

3. Criterion (3): The Improvement in Air 

Quality Must Be Due to Permanent and 

Enforceable Reductions in Emissions 

4. Criterion (4): The Area Must Have a 

Fully Approved Maintenance Plan 

Meeting the Requirements of Section 

175A 

III. Update of the Ohio Ozone Maintenance 

Plan for the Cincinnati Area 

A. How did EPA Evaluate the Maintenance 

Plan Update? 

B. How Were the Point and Area Sources 

Updated? 

C. How Were the Mobile Sources Updated? 

D. Does the Updated Maintenance Plan 

Reaffirm the Adequacy of the 

Maintenance Plan? 

IV. Transportation Conformity Emission 

Budgets for the Cincinnati Area

A. What Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets? 

B. What Is a Safety Margin? 

C. How Does This Action Change the 

Current Maintenance Plan? 

D. What Are Subarea Budgets? 

E. Why Is the Request Approvable? 

F. What Is the Adequacy and Approval 

Process for These Submitted Budgets? 

V. Volatile Organic Compounds Emission 

Control Regulations 

A. Source Categories Not Requiring New 

VOC Regulations 

1. Industrial Cleaning Solvents 

2. Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Industry 

3. Automobile Refinishing 

4. Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 

Facilities 

5. Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Tanks 

6. Lithographic Printing 

7. Plastic Parts Coating 

B. Source Categories for Which VOC RACT 

Regulations Have Been Proposed 

1. Bakeries 

2. Batch Processes 

3. Industrial Wastewater 

4. SOCMI Reactors/Distillation Units 

5. Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

VI. Changes in the Ohio SIP To Support the 

Removal of Vehicle Inspection And 

Maintenance Programs in the Cincinnati 

and Dayton Areas 

A. What Changes in the Ohio SIP Have 

Been Submitted To Support the Removal 

of the I/M Programs in the Cincinnati 

and Dayton Areas? 

B. What Authorities Apply To Removing 

the Cincinnati and Dayton I/M Programs 

From Active Status and Moving Them to 

Contingency Measures in the Ohio SIP? 

C. What Is EPA’s Analysis of Ohio’s 

Demonstrations of No Interference With 

the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS in the 

Cincinnati and Dayton Areas? 

D. Has Ohio Demonstrated That 

Terminating the I/M Programs in the 

Cincinnati and Dayton Areas Will Not 

Interfere With the Expeditious 

Attainment and Maintenance of the 8-

Hour Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter 

NAAQS? 

VII. Conclusions on the Redesignation of the 

Cincinnati Area to Attainment of the 1-

Hour Ozone NAAQS And The Removal 

Of the Vehicle I/M Programs In The 

Cincinnati and Dayton Areas 

A. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding 

Ohio’s Request for the Redesignation of 

the Cincinnati Area to Attainment of the 

1-Hour Ozone NAAQS? 

B. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding 

Ohio’s Ozone Maintenance Plan for the 

Cincinnati Area? 

C. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding 

the VOC and NOX Emission Inventories 

Used To Support Ohio’s Ozone 

Redesignation Request? 

D. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding 

Ohio’s Draft RACT Rules? 

E. What Are Our Conclusions Concerning 

the Elimination of I/M Programs in the 

Cincinnati and Dayton Areas? 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information 

A. Does This Proposed Action Apply to 

Me? 

This proposed action pertains to the 

ground level ozone programs in place in 

the Cincinnati (Butler, Clermont, 

Hamilton, and Warren Counties) and 

Dayton (Clark, Greene, Miami, and 

Montgomery Counties) areas. If you own 

or operate a VOC or NOX emissions 

source in the Cincinnati area or live in 

the Cincinnati area, this proposed action 

may impact or apply to you. This 

proposed action may also apply to or 

impact you if you live in the Dayton 

area. Finally, this proposed action may 

impact you if you are involved in 

mobile source or transportation 

planning or implementation in the 

Cincinnati or Dayton areas. This action 

has impacts on pollution sources in 

these Counties, including industrial and 

mobile sources of air pollution. 

B. How Can I Get Copies of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. The Regional Office has established 

an electronic public rulemaking file 

available for inspection at RME ID No. 

R05–OAR–2005–OH–0004, and a hard 

copy file which is available for 

inspection at the Regional Office. The 

official public file consists of the 

documents specifically referenced in 

this action, any public comments 

received, and other information related 

to this action. Although a part of the 

official docket, the public rulemaking 

file does not include CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. The official public 

rulemaking file is the collection of 

materials that is available for public 

viewing at the Air Programs Branch, Air 

and Radiation Division, EPA Region 5, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. 

2. Electronic Access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the 

regulations.gov Web site located at 

http://www.regulations.gov, where you 

can find, review, and submit comments 

on Federal rules that have been 

published in the Federal Register, the 

Government’s legal newspaper, and that 

are open for comment. 

For public commenters, it is 

important to note that EPA’s policy is 

that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing at the EPA Regional Office, as 

EPA receives them and without change, 

unless the comment contains 

copyrighted material, CBI, or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. When EPA 

identifies a comment containing 

copyrighted material, EPA will provide 

a reference to that material in the 

version of the comment that is placed in 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 19897

1The 1-hour ozone NAAQS is violated when the 

annual average expected number of daily peak 1-

hour ozone concentrations equaling or exceeding 

0.125 parts per million (ppm) (125 parts per billion 

(ppb)) is 1.05 or greater over a three-year period at 

any monitoring site in the area of interest.

the official public rulemaking file. The 

entire printed comment, including the 

copyrighted material, will be available 

at the Regional Office for public 

inspection. 

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit 

Comments? 

You may submit comments 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier. To ensure proper 

receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate 

rulemaking identification number by 

including the text ‘‘Public comment on 

proposed rulemaking Region 5 Air 

Docket ‘R05–OAR–2005–OH–0004’ ’’ in 

the subject line on the first page of your 

comment. Please ensure that your 

comments are submitted within the 

specified comment period. Comments 

received after the close of the comment 

period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not 

required to consider these late 

comments. 

D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI 

to EPA through RME, regulations.gov, or 

e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information on a disk or 

CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and identify electronically within the 

file(s) on the disk or CD ROM the 

specific information that is claimed as 

CBI. In addition to one complete version 

of the comment that includes 

information claimed as CBI, a copy of 

the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI must be 

submitted for inclusion in the public 

docket. Information so marked will not 

be disclosed except in accordance with 

procedure set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject, heading, Federal 

Register date and page number); 

b. Follow directions—The EPA may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number; 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your recommended 

changes; 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/

or data that you used; 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, please explain how you 

arrived at your estimates in sufficient 

detail to allow for them to be 

reproduced; 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives;

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats; and 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified in this proposed 

rule. 

II. Proposed Redesignation of the 

Cincinnati Area to Attainment of the 1-

Hour Ozone NAAQS 

A. What Is the Background for This 

Proposed Action? 

In accordance with section 107(d) of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) as 

amended in 1977, EPA designated all 

counties in the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area (the Ohio portion of this area 

includes Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, 

and Warren Counties, and the Kentucky 

portion of this area includes Boone, 

Campbell, and Kenton Counties) as an 

ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS in March 1978 (43 FR 

8962). On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 

56694), pursuant to section 107(d)(4)(A) 

of the CAA as amended in 1990, EPA 

designated the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

as a moderate ozone nonattainment area 

based on monitored violations of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS during the 1987–

1989 period. 

From 1996 through 1998, air quality 

monitors located in Ohio and Kentucky 

recorded three years of complete, 

quality-assured ambient ozone 

monitoring data in the CincinnatiHamilton area that did not violate the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS.1 Thus, the area 

was eligible for consideration of a 

redesignation to attainment of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS. As noted below, 

this area has continued to monitor 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

from the 1996–1998 period through the 

present.

In 1999, the Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) and the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky Natural 

Resources and Environmental 

Protection Cabinet (Cabinet) submitted 

separate requests for the redesignation 

of the State-specific portions of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment 

of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA 

received a request from Ohio EPA on 

July 2, 1999 to redesignate the 

Cincinnati area as an attainment/

maintenance area for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Ohio EPA submitted 

additional supporting information on 

August 16, 1999, and completed its 

redesignation request by submitting a 

summary of public hearing results and 

comments on December 22, 1999. The 

Cabinet submitted a prehearing 

redesignation request on October 28, 

1999, and requested that the EPA 

parallel process this submittal. The 

Cabinet completed its redesignation 

request, including an adopted ozone 

maintenance plan and public hearing 

information, in a submittal to the EPA 

on December 13, 1999. 

On January 24, 2000 (65 FR 3630), 

EPA proposed approval of the Ohio and 

Kentucky ozone redesignation requests. 

This rulemaking also proposed to 

determine that the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area had attained the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS by its extended attainment 

data, and proposed to approve an 

exemption for the area from NOX

emission control requirements 

contained in section 182(f) of the CAA. 

EPA issued a final rulemaking (65 FR 

37879, June 19, 2000), effective July 5, 

2000, determining that the CincinnatiHamilton area had attained the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS and approving the Ohio 

and Kentucky ozone redesignation 

requests, including the States’ plans for 

maintaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

in their respective portions of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area, as well as 

their NOX exemption requests. 

On August 17, 2000, two Ohio 

residents and the Ohio chapter of the 

Sierra Club petitioned the United States 

Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit 

(Court) for review of EPA’s final rule on 

the States’ ozone redesignation requests 

for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. The 

petitioners urged the Court to find that 

the EPA had erred in a number of 

respects in approving the redesignation 

requests. In its September 11, 2001 

decision in this case, the Court upheld 

EPA’s actions with respect to all 

requirements for redesignation that 

related to Kentucky. The Court also 

rejected the petitioners’ challenges with 

respect to EPA’s approval of the Ohio 

redesignation request, with the sole 

exception of EPA’s finding that it could 

approve Ohio’s redesignation request 

before Ohio had fully adopted all of the 

VOC emission control rules needed to 

comply with the RACT requirements of 

part D, subpart 2 of the CAA. 

Specifically, the Court rejected the 

petitioners’ challenges to, and upheld 

EPA’s approvals of the Ohio and 

Kentucky ozone maintenance plans and 

EPA’s conclusions with respect to 

transportation conformity requirements. 

19898 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

The Court concluded that EPA exceeded 

its discretion by determining that Ohio 

did not need to fully adopt all of the 

RACT rules required by part D, subpart 

2 of the CAA. The Court vacated EPA’s 

action in redesignating the CincinnatiHamilton area to attainment of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS and ‘‘remanded for 

further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion.’’ See Wall v. EPA (265 F.3d 

436, 6th Circuit 2001). 

On February 12, 2002 (67 FR 6411), in 

a direct final rule in response to the 

Court’s findings, the EPA took action to 

reinstate EPA’s redesignation to 

attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

for the Kentucky portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area. This 

rulemaking action was withdrawn on 

April 8, 2002 (67 FR 16646), as the 

result of the submittal of a public 

comment on the direct final rule. The 

reinstatement of the attainment 

designation for the Kentucky portion of 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area was 

subsequently completed through a final 

rule on July 31, 2002 (67 FR 49600). 

On March 12, 2002 (67 FR 11041), 

through a technical amendment to its 

June 19, 2000 final rule, the EPA revised 

the ozone designation of the Ohio 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

to nonattainment of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS with a classification of 

moderate nonattainment. The technical 

amendment of the original final rule 

became effective on April 11, 2002. The 

final rule technical amendment, 

coupled with EPA’s July 31, 2002 final 

rule, created separate designations for 

the Ohio and Kentucky portions of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area with regard to 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The Kentucky portion of the area is 

designated as attainment for the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS, while the Ohio portion 

of the area continues to be a 

nonattainment area. As noted elsewhere 

in this notice, today’s proposed action 

applies only to the Ohio portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area (only to the 

Cincinnati area). 

On March 10, 2005, the Ohio EPA 

submitted a new redesignation request 

and ozone maintenance plan revision 

for the Cincinnati area. This request 

notes that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

has monitored attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS continuously from the 

1996–1999 period through the present. 

This submittal also includes VOC 

emission control rules that Ohio was 

preparing to adopt to comply with the 

RACT requirements of the Clean Air 

Act. This submittal notes that Ohio is 

scheduling a public hearing on the 

redesignation request, maintenance 

plan, and VOC RACT rules, and 

requests EPA to parallel process these 

submittal elements.

On April 4, 2005, the Ohio EPA 

submitted additional information 

including, a negative source declaration 

for plastic parts coating, and a 

demonstration that terminating the 

vehicle I/M programs in the Cincinnati 

and Dayton areas will not interfere with 

the attainment and maintenance of the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS in these areas. 

Ohio EPA proposes to revise the ozone 

maintenance plans for these areas to 

move the I/M programs to the 

contingency measure portions of the 

maintenance plans. This submittal 

further revises the ozone maintenance 

demonstrations for these areas and 

revises mobile source emission budgets 

to reflect the increases in mobile source 

VOC and NOX emissions that will result 

when the I/M programs are terminated 

in these areas. Ohio EPA requests the 

EPA to rule on the air quality impacts 

of removing these emission control 

programs, and commits to completing 

analyses in compliance with section 

110(l) of the CAA to demonstrate that 

dropping these emission reduction 

programs will not interfere with 

attainment of other air quality standards 

and air quality control requirements 

covered by the CAA. Other than 

removing the emission impacts of the I/

M programs from the maintenance 

plans’ emission projections and moving 

the I/M programs to the contingency 

measures portions of the Cincinnati and 

Dayton maintenance plans, Ohio EPA 

requests that the remainder of the 

Cincinnati and Dayton maintenance 

plans remain the same as those 

previously approved by the EPA. 

B. What Are the Redesignation Review 

Criteria? 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment of a NAAQS. Specifically, 

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

for redesignation of an area to 

attainment provided that: (1) The 

Administrator of the EPA determines 

that the area has attained the applicable 

NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully 

approved the applicable state 

implementation plan for the area under 

section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the 

Administrator determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP, 

applicable Federal air pollution control 

regulations, and other permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions; (4) the 

Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA; and (5) the State 

containing the area has met all 

requirements applicable to the area 

under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignations for the 1-hour ozone 

standard 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 provided further guidance 

on processing redesignation requests in 

documents including the following: 

‘‘Maintenance Plans for Redesignation 

of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum 

from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 

Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 

1992; 

‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from 

G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 

Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 

1992; 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests 

to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, September 4, 1992; 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean 

Air Act (Act) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, October 

28, 1992; 

‘‘Technical Support Documents 

(TSD’s) for Redesignation of Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment 

Areas,’’ Memorandum from G.T. Helms, 

Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide 

Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, September 17, 1993; 

‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in 

Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone 

and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’

Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, 

Acting Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, to Air Division 

Directors, Regions 1–10, November 30, 

1993. 

‘‘Part D New Source Review (part D 

NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; 

and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 19899

‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, 

Attainment Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’

Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, May 10, 1995. 

C. Has the State of Ohio and the 

Cincinnati Area Complied With the 

Redesignation Review Criteria? 

We believe that Ohio has 

demonstrated that the CincinnatiHamilton area has attained the 1-hour 

ozone standard and has demonstrated 

that the Ohio portion of this area has 

met all of the applicable section 

107(d)(3)(E) redesignation criteria as 

discussed below. 

1. Criterion (1): The Area Must Be 

Attaining the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

In its June 19, 2000 rulemaking, EPA 

issued a final rule determining that the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area had attained 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 65 FR 37879. 

While the Court, in Wall v. EPA, vacated 

EPA’s action redesignating the area to 

attainment, it did not vacate EPA’s 

determination of attainment for the 

entire area. Therefore, the determination 

remains intact and in effect. See EPA’s 

final rule reinstating the redesignation 

of the Kentucky portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area. 67 FR 49600 

(July 31, 2002). As a result of the 

determination of attainment, EPA also 

determined that certain attainment 

demonstration requirements, along with 

certain other related requirements of 

part D of title I of the CAA are not 

applicable to the area. See 65 FR 37883–

3884. See Memorandum of John Seitz, 

‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, 

Attainment Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ dated 

May 10, 1995. EPA has interpreted the 

provisions of subparts 1 and 2 of part D 

of title I of the CAA so as not to require 

the submission of State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revisions concerning 

attainment demonstrations, Reasonably 

Available Control Measures (RACM), 

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP), or 

sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) 

contingency measures, and other related 

requirements for so long as an area is 

attaining the relevant NAAQS. EPA 

explained its rationale in its prior 

rulemakings on the Cincinnati area, as 

well as in other rulemaking actions. See

for example 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996) 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain), 66 FR 53094 

(October 19, 2001) (Pittsburgh-Beaver 

Valley, Pennsylvania); 60 FR 36723 

(July 18, 1995) (Salt Lake and Davis 

Counties, Utah), 68 FR 4847,4747, 4751, 

4855 (January 30, 2003), 68 FR 25418 

(May 12, 2003 (St. Louis, Missouri), 60 

FR 37366 (July 20, 1995), 61 FR 31832–

33 (Grand Rapids, Michigan). The 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Tenth Circuit has upheld this 

interpretation, Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F. 

3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996), and the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

has also affirmed EPA’s redesignation 

actions based on this interpretation. 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th 

Cir. 2004).

As a result of EPA’s determination of 

attainment, certain attainment 

demonstration requirements, section 

172(c)(1), section 182(b)(1), 182(j), the 

RACM requirement for reasonable 

further progress, and the requirement 

for contingency measures under 

sections 172(c)(9) are not applicable as 

long as the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

continues to attain the NAAQS. 

We propose to find that the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area has continued 

to attain the 1-hour ozone standard and 

we propose to approve the redesignation 

request submitted by Ohio for the 

Cincinnati area as meeting this 

requirement. Complete, quality-assured 

ambient monitoring data for the 2002–

2004 ozone seasons (April through 

October, when the highest ozone 

concentrations are expected to occur in 

this area) demonstrate that the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS continues to be attained 

in this area. In fact, based on monitoring 

data, the Cincinnati-Hamilton area has 

been attaining the 1-hour ozone 

standard continuously from the 1996–

1998 period though 2004. 

For ozone, an area may be considered 

to be attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

if there are no violations of the NAAQS, 

as determined in accordance with 40 

CFR 50.9 and Appendix H, based on 

three complete, consecutive calendar 

years of quality-assured air quality 

monitoring data. A violation of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS occurs when the 

annual average number of expected 

daily exceedances is equal to or greater 

than 1.05 per year at any monitoring site 

in the area or in its immediate 

downwind environs. A daily 

exceedance occurs at a monitoring site 

when the recorded maximum hourly 

ozone concentration during a given day 

is 0.125 parts per million of air (ppm) 

(125 parts per billion of air (ppb)) or 

higher. The data must be collected and 

quality-assured in accordance with 40 

CFR part 58, and recorded in the 

Aerometric Information Retrieval 

System (AIRS). The monitors used to 

support a redesignation to attainment of 

the NAAQS should have remained at 

the same location for the duration of the 

monitoring period required to 

demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS 

(three years for ozone). 

The Ohio EPA and the Cabinet have 

continued to submit ozone data for all 

monitors operated in the CincinnatiHamilton area. Review of the ozone data 

contained in AIRS shows that both 

States have maintained ozone 

monitoring in the area, with complete 

quality-assured monitoring data being 

supplied to AIRS from the 1996–1998 

period, when the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area first monitored attainment of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS, through the 

present. Our January 24, 2000 proposed 

rule (65 FR 3634) documented the lack 

of ozone standard violations for the 

1996–1998 period. In Table 1, we 

summarize the data obtained from AIRS 

and demonstrate that the ozone 

monitoring data continue to show 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

during the 2002–2004 period. As we 

have noted, the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area did not experience a monitored 

violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

during the entire 1996–2004 period, 

demonstrating attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS in this area.

TABLE 1.—1-HOUR OZONE NAAQS EXCEEDANCES IN THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON, OHIO-KENTUCKY AREA FROM 2002–

2004 

Site County 

Expected 1-hour ozone standard exceedances 

2002 2003 2004 Annual average 

Hamilton .......................................................................... Butler .................................. 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 

Middletown ...................................................................... Butler .................................. 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 

2400 Clermont ................................................................. Clermont ............................. 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 

11590 Grooms Rd. .......................................................... Hamilton ............................. 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 

19900 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1.—1-HOUR OZONE NAAQS EXCEEDANCES IN THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON, OHIO-KENTUCKY AREA FROM 2002–

2004—Continued

Site County 

Expected 1-hour ozone standard exceedances 

2002 2003 2004 Annual average 

6950 Ripple Road ........................................................... Hamilton ............................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

250 William Howard ........................................................ Hamilton ............................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Lebanon 230 Cook Rd .................................................... Warren ............................... 1.0 .................... .................... ** 

Lebanon 416 Southeast Street ....................................... Warren ............................... .................... 1.0 0.0 0.5 

KY 338 ............................................................................ Boone ................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

700 Alexandria ................................................................ Campbell ............................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Covington ........................................................................ Kenton ................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

** It is not appropriate to calculate an annual average expected exceedance rate based on a single year of ozone data. 

These data have been quality-assured. 

These data show that the CincinnatiHamilton area, as a whole, is currently 

attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

2. Criteria (2) and (5): The Area Must 

Have a Fully Approved SIP Under 

Section 110(k); and the Area Must Meet 

All Applicable Requirements Under 

Section 110 and Part D 

Before the Cincinnati area may be 

redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS, the State of Ohio must 

have fulfilled the applicable 

requirements of section 110 and part D 

of the Act. We address here the status 

of Ohio with regard to these 

requirements. Since the Kentucky 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

has been redesignated to attainment of 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, we do not 

here address the status of the Kentucky 

portion of the area. You are referred to 

our discussion of these criteria in our 

January 24, 2000 proposed rule (65 FR 

3634). 

The September 4, 1992 Calcagni 

memorandum confirms that areas 

requesting redesignation to attainment 

have to fully adopt rules and programs 

that come due prior to the submittal of 

a complete redesignation request. See 

also 60 FR 12459, 12465–66 (March 7, 

1995). (Redesignation of Detroit-Ann 

Arbor, MI), 68 FR 15424, 25427 (May 

12, 2003) (St. Louis NFR). Sierra Club v. 

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

Furthermore, requirements of the CAA 

that come due subsequent to the State’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request would continue to be applicable 

to the area until a redesignation to 

attainment is approved, but are not 

required as a prerequisite for 

redesignation (see section 175A(c) of the 

CAA). If the redesignation is 

disapproved, the State remains 

obligated to fulfill those requirements. 

The Court in Wall v. EPA, after 

reviewing EPA’s prior action 

redesignating Cincinnati, upheld EPA’s 

actions with respect to redesignation 

requirements with the exception of 

EPA’s determination that Ohio did not 

need to fully adopt all of the RACT rules 

of part D, subpart 2, before being 

redesignated. In this notice, as 

discussed below, we propose to find 

that Ohio has submitted these remaining 

RACT rules for processing by the EPA, 

and that, following their adoption by the 

State and final approval as a SIP 

revision by the EPA, Ohio has complied 

with the RACT requirements of the 

CAA.

a. Section 110 Requirements 

General SIP requirements are 

delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, 

part A of the CAA. These requirements 

include, but are not limited to, the 

following: Submittal of a SIP that has 

been adopted by the State after 

reasonable notice and public hearing; 

provisions for the establishment and 

operation of appropriate apparatus, 

methods, systems, and procedures 

necessary to monitor ambient air 

quality; implementation of a source 

permit program; provision for part C, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD), and part D, New Source Review 

(NSR) permit programs; criteria for 

stationary source emission control 

measures, monitoring, and reporting; 

provisions for air quality modeling; and 

provisions for public and local agency 

participation. As noted in our January 

24 2000 proposed rule (65 FR 3634), the 

Ohio SIP was reviewed to ensure that all 

applicable requirements under the CAA 

were satisfied through SIP provisions. 

We have concluded that Ohio’s SIP 

complies with the general SIP 

requirements under section 110 of the 

CAA. See also EPA’s June 19, 2000 final 

rulemaking action. 

b. Transport of Ozone Precursors to 

Downwind Areas 

As noted in our January 24, 2000 

proposed action (65 FR 3634), modeling 

results using EPA’s Regional Oxidant 

Model (ROM) indicate that ozone 

precursor emissions from various states 

west of the Ozone Transport Region 

(OTR) in the Northeastern United States 

contribute to increases in ozone 

concentrations in the OTR. The EPA 

issued a SIP call under section 

110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA on October 27, 

1998 (63 FR 57356) (the NOX SIP call) 

requiring the District of Columbia (DC) 

and 22 states, including Ohio, to reduce 

their NOX emissions in order to reduce 

the transport of ozone and ozone 

precursors. Ohio submitted applicable 

statewide NOX emission control rules as 

a requested SIP revision, which the EPA 

approved on August 5, 2003 (68 FR 

12590). The redesignation of this area to 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

does not remove Ohio’s obligation to 

implement its NOX emission control 

rules. 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 

classification are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. The transport SIP submittal 

requirements, where applicable, 

continue to apply to a state regardless of 

the designation of any one particular 

area in the state. Thus we do not believe 

that these requirements should be 

construed to be applicable requirements 

for purposes of redesignation. This 

policy is consistent with EPA’s existing 

conformity and oxygenated fuels 

requirements, as well as with section 

184 ozone transport requirements. See 

discussion in the prior Cincinnati 

redesignation notice 65 FR 37890 (June 

19, 2000); Reading Pennsylvania, 

proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 

53174–53176,(October 10, 1996), 62 FR 

24826 (May 7, 1997); Cleveland-AkronLorrain, Ohio 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 

1996); Tampa, Florida, 60 FR 62748 

(December 7, 1995). See also the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 19901

Pittsburgh redesignation 66 FR 50399 

(October 19, 2001). 

c. Part D General Requirements for 

Nonattainment Areas 

Before the Cincinnati area can be 

redesignated to attainment, Ohio must 

have fulfilled the applicable 

requirements of part D of the CAA. 

Under part D, an area’s ozone 

nonattainment classification determines 

the requirements to which the area and 

the State are subject. Subpart 1 of part 

D sets forth the basic nonattainment 

requirements applicable to all 

nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part 

D establishes additional requirements 

for ozone nonattainment areas classified 

under table 1 of section 181(a) of the 

Act. As described in the General 

Preamble for the implementation of title 

I, specific requirements of subpart 2 

may override subpart 1’s general 

provisions (57 FR 13501, April 16, 

1992). The Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

was classified as a moderate ozone 

nonattainment area. Therefore, to 

qualify for redesignation to attainment, 

the State must meet the applicable 

requirements of subpart 1 of part D—

specifically sections 172(c) and 176, as 

well as the applicable requirements of 

subpart 2 of part D of the Act. 

d. Section 172(c) Requirements 

As noted in our January 24, 2000 

proposed action (65 FR 3635), we 

determined that the original 

redesignation request received from the 

Ohio EPA for the Ohio portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area was supported 

by Ohio’s compliance with the plan 

requirements of section 172(c). We 

continue to determine that Ohio has met 

the plan requirements of section 172(c) 

as discussed here. 

As noted above, in the January 24, 

2000 proposed action, EPA proposed to 

find that the requirements for SIP 

revisions providing ozone attainment 

demonstrations meeting the 

requirements of sections 172(c)(1), 

182(b)(1), and 182(j) were not applicable 

for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

because the area had attained the ozone 

standard based on monitoring data and 

because the requirements for attainment 

demonstrations can be waived for areas 

attaining the ozone standard as 

confirmed in the May 10, 1995 Seitz 

memorandum. This determination was 

finalized in our June 19, 2000 final 

rulemaking (65 FR 37879). The Court, in 

Wall v. EPA, did not vacate this finding 

and it remains in effect. 64 FR 49601 

(July 31, 2002). 

Since the area has continued to attain 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the 

requirements for ozone attainment 

demonstrations, reasonable further 

progress, RACM, and contingency 

measures and related requirements have 

continued to not be applicable to this 

area. For a further discussion of the 

basis of this determination and EPA’s 

relevant policy, please refer to our 

discussions in the June 19, 2000 final 

rule (65 FR 37895). 

The RFP requirement under section 

172(c)(2) of the CAA is defined as 

progress that must be made toward 

attainment. Section 182(b)(1)(A) sets 

forth the specific requirements for RFP 

applicable to the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area. On March 14, 1994, Ohio 

submitted a RFP plan for the Ohio 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. 

On January 28, 1998 (63 FR 4188) EPA 

approved this RFP plan as meeting the 

15 percent RFP VOC emission reduction 

requirements of section 182(b)(1)(A). By 

meeting the specific RFP requirements 

of section 182(b)(1)(A), Ohio and the 

Cincinnati area are also meeting the RFP 

requirements of section 172(c)(2).

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission 

and approval of a comprehensive, 

accurate, and current inventory of actual 

emissions. The Ohio EPA submitted a 

1990 base year emissions inventory 

under section 182(a)(1) and EPA 

approved it on December 7, 1995 (60 FR 

62737). Since Ohio has met the more 

definitive emissions inventory 

requirements of section 182(a)(1), we 

have determined that Ohio has also met 

the more general emissions inventory 

requirements of section 172(c)(3). 

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 source permits for the 

construction and operation of new and 

modified major stationary sources 

anywhere in the nonattainment area. 

Section 182(b)(5) requires all major new 

sources or major source modifications in 

a moderate nonattainment area to 

achieve offsetting reductions of existing 

VOC emissions at a ratio of at least 1.15 

to 1.0. The EPA has determined that 

areas redesignated to attainment do not 

need to comply with the requirement 

that a NSR program be approved prior 

to redesignation provided that the State 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

standard without part D NSR in effect. 

The rationale for this decision is 

described in a October 14, 1994 

memorandum from Mary Nichols. See 

61 FR 31831, June 21, 1996. 

Nonetheless, Ohio’s NSR program was 

fully approved by the EPA on January 

10, 2003 (68 FR 1366). Ohio’s Federally 

delegated PSD program will become 

effective in the Cincinnati area upon 

redesignation to attainment. 

In accordance with EPA’s 

determination of attainment, the 

requirement for contingency measures 

under section 172(c)(9) is not 

applicable. 

e. Section 176 Conformity Requirements 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that Federally 

supported or funded projects conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIP. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects developed, funded or approved 

under Title 23 U.S.C. of the Federal 

Transit Act (‘‘transportation 

conformity’’), as well as to all other 

Federally supported or funded projects 

(‘‘general conformity’’). Section 176 

further provides that state conformity 

revisions must be consistent with 

Federal conformity regulations that the 

CAA required the EPA to promulgate. 

EPA believes that it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity requirements as 

not applying for purposes of evaluating 

the redesignation requests under section 

107(d). The rationale for this is based on 

a combination of two factors. First, the 

requirement to submit SIP revisions to 

comply with the conformity provisions 

of the CAA continues to apply to areas 

after redesignation to attainment, since 

such areas would be subject to a section 

175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA’s 

Federal conformity rules require the 

performance of conformity analyses in 

the absence of Federally approved state 

rules. Therefore, because areas are 

subject to the conformity requirements 

regardless of whether they are 

redesignated to attainment and must 

implement conformity under Federal 

rules if state rules are not yet approved, 

EPA believes it is reasonable to view 

these requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating a redesignation 

request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426, 

439 (6th Cir. 2001) upholding this 

interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748 

(December 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida). 

Ohio submitted transportation 

conformity regulations as a revision to 

the SIP on August 17, 1995. The State 

adopted State rules to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR Part 51, subpart 

T, as published on November 24, 1993. 

EPA conditionally approved the 

revision to the SIP on May 16, 1996, (61 

FR 24702) effective on July 15, 1996. 

The revision was conditionally 

approved because the Federal 

transportation conformity rule had been 

amended twice since the original 1993 

publication and the Ohio SIP needed to 

19902 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

be amended to accommodate the 

changes. On October 6, 1999, Ohio EPA 

submitted a SIP revision with adopted 

State rules to meet the requirements of 

40 CFR Part 51, subpart T as published 

on August 15, 1997. The revised State 

regulations were approved effective July 

31, 2000, in a notice published on May 

30, 2000, (65 FR 34395). 

f. Subpart 2 Section 182 Requirements 

The Cincinnati-Hamilton area was 

classified as a moderate nonattainment 

area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Therefore, part D, subpart 2, section 

182(b) requirements apply. As set forth 

in the September 4, 1992 and September 

17, 1993 EPA guidance memoranda, the 

requirements which came due prior to 

Ohio’s request to designate the 

Cincinnati area must be fully approved 

into the SIP before or at the time EPA 

approves the redesignation of the 

Cincinnati area to attainment of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS. Those 

requirements are discussed below. 

1. 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory 

The 1990 base year emissions 

inventory was due for submittal by the 

State by November 15, 1992. Ohio EPA 

submitted the Cincinnati 1990 base year 

VOC and NOX emissions inventory on 

March 14, 1994, and EPA approved the 

emissions inventory on December 7, 

1995 (60 FR 62737). 

2. Periodic Emission Inventory Updates 

Periodic VOC and NOX emission 

inventories were required to be 

submitted every three years, beginning 

in November 15, 1995. Ohio provided 

its most recent estimates of emissions 

for the years 1993, 1996, 1999 and 2002 

in its July 2, 1999, December 22, 1999, 

March 8, 2005 and April 4, 2005 

redesignation request submittals. These 

emission inventory updates were 

discussed in our January 24, 2000 

proposed action (65 FR 3638, Tables 2 

and 3). A summary of the 1996, 1999 

and 2002 emission inventories can also 

be found in Tables 2 and 3 of this 

action. EPA is proposing to approve 

these emission inventory updates as 

meeting the section 182(a)(3)(A) 

requirement of the CAA for periodic 

emission inventory submissions. 

3. Emission Statement Requirements 

The emission statement SIP revision 

was due for submittal by November 15, 

1992. The Ohio EPA submitted an 

emission statement SIP revision for 

Ohio on March 18, 1994, and EPA 

approved it on October 13, 1994 (59 FR 

51863). 

4. Fifteen Percent Rate-of-Progress Plan 

Requirements 

The 15 percent VOC emission 

reduction RFP plan was required to be 

submitted by November 15, 1993. This 

plan requirement was applicable to the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area. The Ohio 

EPA submitted the 15 percent RFP plan 

on March 14, 1994, and EPA approved 

it on January 28, 1998 (63 FR 4188). 

5. VOC RACT Requirements 

VOC RACT rules for three classes of 

VOC sources are required under section 

182(b)(2) to be included in the Ohio SIP. 

The VOC source categories are: (a) All 

VOC sources covered by Control 

Technique Guidelines (CTGs) issued 

between November 15, 1990 and the 

date the Cincinnati area attained the 1-

hour ozone standard; (b) all VOC 

sources covered by a CTG issued prior 

to November 15, 1990; and (c) all other 

major non-CTG stationary sources in the 

Cincinnati area. The EPA approved 

Ohio’s VOC RACT rules on April 25, 

1996 (61 FR 18255), September 7, 1994 

(59 FR 46182), and October 23, 1995 (60 

FR 54308). These VOC RACT rules, 

however, did not complete Ohio’s 

obligation, under the CAA, to adopt 

RACT rules for all applicable source 

categories and sources. 

As noted above, in our June 19, 2000 

final rule (65 FR 37879), we determined 

that Ohio did not need to fully adopt all 

of the RACT rules required by part D of 

the CAA for the Cincinnati area to 

qualify for a redesignation to attainment 

of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The Court, 

in Wall v. EPA, concluded that EPA 

exceeded its discretion in making this 

determination and vacated our approval 

of the redesignation of the CincinnatiHamilton area to attainment of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS.

Below, we address new RACT rules, 

permits-to-install restricting some 

sources to VOC emission levels below 

RACT applicability levels, and negative 

source declarations met to complete 

Ohio’s compliance with the RACT 

requirements of the CAA. Assuming that 

these State rules and negative source 

declarations are approved in final, Ohio 

will have complied with the RACT 

requirements of part D of the CAA, 

eliminating the sole basis for the Court’s 

decision to vacate our prior approval of 

the redesignation of the CincinnatiHamilton area. 

6. Reasonably Available Control 

Measures (RACM) 

The General Preamble, 57 FR 13560 

(April 16, 1992), states that EPA 

interprets section 172(c)(1) so that the 

RACM requirements are a ‘‘component’’

of an area’s attainment demonstration. 

Thus, since the attainment 

demonstration is no longer an 

applicable requirement, RACM is no 

longer an applicable requirement. EPA 

has consistently interpreted this 

provision to require only 

implementation of potential RACM 

measures that could contribute to 

reasonable progress or attainment. 

General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 (April 

16, 1992). Thus, where an area has 

already attained the standard, no 

additional RACM measures are 

required. See prior Cincinnati 

redesignation, 65 FR 37883–84 (June 19, 

2000); Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, 

Pennsylvania, 66 FR 53096 (October 19, 

2001) and St. Louis rulemaking, 68 FR 

25428 (May 12, 2003). 

7. Stage II Vapor Recovery Requirements 

Section 182(b)(3) requires states to 

submit State II gasoline vapor recovery 

rules no later than November 15, 1992. 

The Ohio Stage II rules were submitted 

as a SIP revision on June 7, 1993 and on 

October 20, 1994. The EPA partially 

approved and partially disapproved 

Ohio’s SIP revision for implementation 

of Stage II (58 FR 52911). As stated in 

that rulemaking action, with the 

exception of paragraph 3745–21–09 

(DDD)(5), EPA considers Ohio’s Stage II 

program to fully satisfy the criteria set 

forth in a September 17, 1993 EPA 

guidance document for such programs 

titled ‘‘Enforcement Guidance for Stage 

II Vehicle Refueling Control Programs.’’

Only those Stage II provisions 

previously approved by EPA are part of 

the Cincinnati maintenance plan. The 

September 17, 1993 guidance 

memorandum states that once onboard 

vapor recovery regulations are 

promulgated, the Stage II regulations are 

no longer applicable for moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas. The EPA 

promulgated onboard vapor recovery 

rules in February 1994. Therefore, 

pursuant to section 202(a)(6) of the 

CAA, Stage II is no longer required. 

Ohio, however, has opted to include 

reductions in VOC from the Stage II 

program as part of the submitted 

maintenance plan and the previously 

approved 15 percent RFP plan (63 FR 

4188 or 63 FR 67586). 

8. Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) 

Requirements 

Section 182(b)(4) of the CAA requires 

States to submit I/M regulations for 

ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

moderate and above. Under EPA’s I/M 

rule in 40 CFR part 51, States are 

required to submit these regulations by 

November 15, 1993. Ohio submitted 

regulations for an I/M program (EVerDate jul<14>2003 14:54 Apr 14, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 19903

Check) on May 26, 1994, and EPA 

approved these rules on April 4, 1995 

(60 FR 16989). 

As noted below, Ohio EPA has 

requested that the E-Check program be 

discontinued in the future. Ohio has 

demonstrated that the VOC and NOX

emission reductions obtained through 

the E-Check program are not needed for 

maintenance of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Ohio has requested that ECheck, upon termination, be considered 

to be a contingency measure in Ohio’s 

ozone maintenance plan for the 

Cincinnati area. This issue is dealt with 

in section VI of this proposed action. 

9. NOX Emission Control Requirements 

Section 182(f) of the CAA establishes 

NOX emission control requirements for 

ozone nonattainment areas. It provides 

that these emission control 

requirements, however, do not apply to 

an area if the Administrator determines 

that NOX emission reductions would 

not contribute to attainment of the 

ozone standard. The Administrator 

made such a determination for the Ohio 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

ozone nonattainment area on July 13, 

1995 (60 FR 36060). This NOX emission 

control waiver was based on the fact 

that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area was 

currently not violating the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. On June 19, 2000 (65 FR 

37879), we extended the NOX emission 

control waiver to the entire CincinnatiHamilton area based on a clean air 

determination. 

Since the NOX emission control 

waiver is approved as a final rule, Ohio 

EPA is not required to adopt and 

implement NOX emission control 

regulations pursuant to section 182(f) 

for the Cincinnati area to be 

redesignated. Ohio EPA has committed 

to adopt NOX RACT rules as a 

contingency measure to be considered 

and possibly implemented upon a 

violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

subsequent to the redesignation of the 

Cincinnati area to attainment of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS. 

g. Conclusions Regarding Criteria (2) 

and (5) 

EPA concludes that, after Ohio has 

adopted the RACT rules reviewed here 

and we have approved these RACT rules 

as a SIP revision, Ohio and the 

Cincinnati area will have satisfied the 

requirement that the State and the area 

have a fully approved SIP meeting all 

applicable requirements under section 

110(k), section 110, and part D of the 

CAA. 

3. Criterion (3): The Improvement in Air 

Quality Must Be Due to Permanent and 

Enforceable Reductions in Emissions 

The improvement in air quality must 

be due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

the SIP, Federal measures, and other 

State adopted measures. The 

improvement in air quality in the Ohio 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

is due to emissions reductions from the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Control Program (FMVECP), Stage II 

gasoline vapor recovery program, VOC 

RACT controls, and the partial 

implementation of E-Check. Between 

1993 and 1996, the VOC emissions in 

the Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area were reduced by 6.7 

percent. The emission control programs 

noted here have been adopted by the 

State and have been approved into the 

Ohio SIP by the EPA. Based on this 

conclusion, it is concluded that Ohio 

has complied with Criteria (3). It is 

further noted that, subsequent to 1996, 

Ohio has continued to implement these 

emission controls and has adopted 

statewide NOX emission control rules in 

compliance with EPA’s NOX SIP call, 

further improving the air quality in the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area. See the 

documentation of 1990, 1993, and 1996 

VOC and NOX emissions for the 

Cincinnati area in Tables 2 and 3 of our 

January 24, 2000 proposed rule for the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton ozone 

redesignation (65 FR 3638).

4. Criterion (4): The Area Must Have a 

Fully Approved Maintenance Plan 

Meeting the Requirements of Section 

175A 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

updated maintenance plan and to 

determine that it meets the requirements 

of the CAA. 

In its January 24, 2000 proposed rule 

(65 FR 3630), the EPA documented and 

proposed to approve a maintenance 

plan for the Ohio portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area as meeting the 

requirements of section 175A. This 

maintenance plan was approved in 

EPA’s June 19, 2000 final rule (65 FR 

37879). Although the Court, in Wall v. 

EPA, vacated EPA’s approval of the 

redesignation of the CincinnatiHamilton area due to the lack of VOC 

RACT rules in Ohio, the Court upheld 

EPA’s approval of Ohio’s ozone 

maintenance plan for the Cincinnati 

area. 

Due to passage of time, Ohio’s original 

maintenance demonstration, which 

projected maintenance of the ozone 

standard through 2010, no longer 

satisfies the requirement that the 

maintenance plan demonstrate 

maintenance for 10 years after EPA 

approval of the ozone redesignation 

request. Based on this fact, Ohio EPA 

has updated the maintenance plan to 

demonstrate maintenance through 2015. 

Below we review this updated 

maintenance plan. 

Please note that besides updating the 

maintenance plan to demonstrate 

maintenance of the 1-hour ozone 

standard through 2015, Ohio EPA has 

also revised the maintenance plan to 

demonstrate that the 1-hour ozone 

standard can be maintained even if the 

E-Check program is terminated in the 

Cincinnati area. Ohio EPA has also 

requested that the E-Check program be 

moved to the contingency portion of the 

maintenance plan. All other aspects of 

the contingency portion of the plan, as 

approved on June 19, 2000 remain in 

place. See our January 24, 2000 

proposed rule (65 FR 3639) for a 

discussion of Ohio’s contingency plan. 

Also please note that the ozone 

maintenance plan approved by EPA on 

June 19, 2000 included the adoption of 

additional RACT rules as a contingency 

measure. Since Ohio is in the process of 

adopting the additional RACT rules to 

meet the requirements of the CAA, the 

consideration of RACT adoption as a 

contingency measure is no longer 

warranted. Should a need for the 

implementation of contingency 

measures be subsequently triggered, the 

State would have to consider other 

contingency measures since this 

contingency measure is no longer 

available. Even though the State has not 

removed this contingency measure from 

the maintenance plan, we do not see 

this as a basis for disapproving Ohio’s 

ozone redesignation request. The 

maintenance plan is not corrupted by 

this issue since Ohio would be forced to 

consider alternate contingency measures 

if triggered, and the presence of the 

RACT adoption contingency measure in 

the maintenance plan does not prevent 

Ohio from doing so. 

The contingency plan provisions of 

the maintenance plan are designed to 

promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. 

Section 175A of the Act requires that a 

maintenance plan include such 

contingency measures as EPA deems 

necessary to assure that the State will 

promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. 

The contingency measures to be 

considered for implementation for the 

Cincinnati area are the following: 

1. Lower Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) 

gasoline; 

2. Reformulated gasoline; 

19904 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

2This contingency measure becomes moot when 

Ohio adopts the RACT rules reviewed here.

3 It is assumed here that E-Check would not 

become a contingency measure until after it is 

terminated in the Cincinnati area.

3. Broader geographic coverage of 

existing regulations; 

4. Application of RACT on sources 

covered by new control technology 

guidelines issued in response to the 

1990 CAA amendments; 2

5. Application of RACT to smaller 

existing sources; 

6. Implementation of one or more 

transportation control measures 

sufficient to achieve at least a 0.5 

percent reduction in actual area wide 

VOC emissions. The transportation 

control measures to be considered 

would include: (a) Trip reduction 

programs, including but not limited to 

employer-based transportation 

management programs, area wide 

rideshare programs, work schedule 

changes, and telecommuting; (b) transit 

improvements; (c) traffic flow 

improvements; and (d) other measures; 

7. Alternative fuel programs for fleet 

vehicle operations; 

8. Controls on consumer products 

consistent with those adopted elsewhere 

in the United States; 

9. VOC offsets for new or modified 

major sources; 

10. VOC offsets for new or modified 

minor sources; 

11. Increased ratio of VOC offsets 

required for new sources; 

12. Requirements of VOC controls on 

new minor sources; and 

13. E–Check (I/M).3

Consideration and selection of one or 

more of the contingency measures will 

take place in the event that the NAAQS 

is violated after the redesignation of the 

Cincinnati area to attainment of the 

NAAQS. If a subsequent violation of the 

ozone NAAQS occurs after 

implementation of the VOC control 

measures, NOX RACT will be activated. 

As noted in our January 24, 2000 

proposed rule (65 FR 3640), the State 

commits to implement contingency 

measures within 12 months of a 

violation of the NAAQS. 

Based on our review of the revised 

maintenance plan, discussed below, and 

Ohio’s revised contingency 

commitments, we conclude that Ohio 

has complied with Criteria (4). The 

revised maintenance plan meets the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA and complies with the relevant 

guidelines of the September 4, 1992 

Calcagni policy memorandum. 

III. Update of the Ohio Ozone 

Maintenance Plan for the Cincinnati 

Area 

A. How Did EPA Evaluate the 

Maintenance Plan Update? 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. The 

maintenance plan is a SIP revision 

which provides for maintenance of the 

relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 

10 years after redesignation. An EPA 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards memorandum dated 

September 4, 1992, provides additional 

guidance on the required elements of a 

maintenance plan. In this case, the 

maintenance plan is only being updated 

in terms of the estimated emissions 

projections and to add E-Check as a 

contingency measure for the Cincinnati 

area. The State already has an approved 

maintenance plan that includes an 

attainment emissions inventory, a 

commitment to maintain an ozone 

monitoring network, a contingency 

plan, and a commitment for continued 

attainment verification which was 

upheld by the Court. In this SIP 

submission, Ohio is updating the 

emissions projections which provide for 

the maintenance demonstration through 

at least 10 years into the future from 

redesignation. This is necessary because 

of the Court’s decision which vacated 

EPA’s original redesignation to 

attainment for the Cincinnati area.

The attainment emissions inventory 

identifies the emissions level in the area 

which is sufficient to attain the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS, and includes emissions 

during the time period which had no 

monitored violations of the ozone 

NAAQS. Maintenance is demonstrated 

by showing that future emissions will 

not exceed the level established by the 

attainment emissions inventory. The 

‘‘attainment emissions inventory’’

approach to demonstrating maintenance 

was upheld in Wall v. EPA, 426 F. 3d 

at 435–37. The 1996 attainment 

emissions inventory established in the 

prior approved maintenance plan 

remains as the approved attainment 

inventory. The only change to the 

inventory is that on-road mobile source 

emissions have been updated by using 

MOBILE6. There have been no 

violations of the 1-hour ozone standard 

over the time period since 1996 and 

thus the 1996 attainment emissions 

levels remain valid. 

Ohio has submitted updated VOC and 

NOX emissions projections for the year 

2015 and has submitted these 

projections as a revision to the SIP. The 

Tables below (Table 2 and Table 3) 

show the prior approved emissions 

levels for point and areas sources and 

the mobile source emissions that have 

been updated using the MOBILE6 

emissions model. Also, the mobile 

emissions estimates are calculated 

without the benefit of the E-Check 

program for 2010 and 2015, as noted in 

parentheses in the on-road mobile and 

total emissions estimates. The results of 

the analysis show that the area is 

expected to maintain the air quality 

standard for at least 10 years into the 

future. Table 2 and Table 3 provide the 

VOC and NOX emissions summaries for 

the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati area 

and demonstrate that the area’s total 

VOC and NOX emissions will remain 

below attainment levels established for 

1996.

TABLE 2.—CINCINNATI, OHIO: VOC MAINTENANCE EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY

[Tons per day] 

Source type 

Year 

1996 1999 2002 2005 2010 2015 

Point ......................................................................................... 74.9 77.0 79.2 81.4 84.3 88.4 

Area .......................................................................................... 70.7 71.4 72.3 73.1 74.5 79.5 

On-road Mobile ........................................................................ 82.9 70.1 60.9 45.6 33.0 * (35.1) 23.6 

* (26.2) 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 19905

TABLE 2.—CINCINNATI, OHIO: VOC MAINTENANCE EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY—Continued

[Tons per day] 

Source type 

Year 

1996 1999 2002 2005 2010 2015 

Total .................................................................................. 228.5 218.5 212.4 200.1 191.8 * (193.9) 191.5 

* (194.1) 

* Without E-Check program. 

TABLE 3.—CINCINNATI, OHIO: NOX MAINTENANCE EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY

[Tons per day] 

Source type 

Year 

1996 1999 2002 2005 2010 2015 

Point ......................................................................................... 279.0 278.6 278.3 277.6 277.4 276.0 

Area .......................................................................................... 30.9 31.4 32.1 32.2 33.8 37.4 

On-road Mobile ........................................................................ 133.9 130.4 116.3 87.8 61.8 * (65.4) 35.0 

* (39.5) 

Total .................................................................................. 443.8 440.4 426.7 397.6 373.0 * (376.6) 348.4 

* (352.9) 

*

Without E-Check program. 

To demonstrate continued attainment, 

the State projected anthropogenic 1996 

emissions of VOC and NOX to the years 

1999, 2002, 2005, 2010 and 2015. The 

results of this analysis show that the 

area is expected to maintain the air 

quality standard for at least ten years 

into the future. In fact, the emissions 

projections show that future emissions 

will be reduced from 1996 levels. 

The emission projections show that 

the emissions are not expected to 

exceed the level of the base year 1996 

inventory during the 10-year 

maintenance period. Therefore, 

maintenance of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS continues to be demonstrated. 

The On-road Mobile emissions were 

also calculated without the E-Check 

program to determine if the area could 

continue to maintain the 1-hour ozone 

standard if the E-Check program were 

discontinued. The 2010 VOC emissions 

from on-road mobile sources were 

calculated by the Ohio-KentuckyIndiana Regional Council of 

Governments (OKI) to be 35.1 tpd of 

VOC and 65.4 tpd of NOX. In the year 

2015, the on-road mobile emissions 

were projected to be 26.2 tpd of VOC 

and 39.5 tpd of NOX without the ECheck program. These emissions 

demonstrate that the area can still 

maintain the 1-hour ozone standard 

without the E-Check program. 

B. How Were the Point and Area 

Sources Updated? 

The point and area sources were 

grown using the same expected growth 

rates that were used in the original 

approved maintenance plan. The 2010 

emission estimates were grown to give 

the expected emissions in 2015. Area 

source estimates in this case include offroad mobile sources, such as 

construction equipment. The growth 

rates are based on expected population 

growth. Any emission reductions from 

implementation of RACT on the nonControl Technique Guidelines source 

categories, which Ohio is working to 

control, are not included in the point 

source emission projections. Thus, this 

is a worse case emissions projection and 

still demonstrates maintenance of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS. Some RACT 

emission controls will provide 

additional VOC emission reductions 

and will further support maintenance of 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

C. How Were the Mobile Sources 

Updated? 

The mobile source emissions cover all 

on-road mobile sources such as cars, 

trucks, and buses, including transit. The 

Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional 

Council of Governments (OKI) used the 

most recent transportation network 

model with the most recent projections 

of population and employment to 

estimate emissions from the 

transportation system. The 

transportation network model is 

calibrated by using actual ground counts 

of vehicles currently on the highways. A 

summary of the OKI updates and 

calibrations were provided in the Ohio 

submittal. OKI estimated the mobile 

source emissions for 2015 to be 23.6 

tons per day of VOC and 35 tons per day 

of NOX. OKI provided the 2015 on-road 

mobile emissions information to the 

Ohio EPA, who in turn summarized the 

emissions in the revised maintenance 

demonstration and emissions budget 

reviewed here. OKI also provided the 

2010 and 2015 emissions estimates 

without the E-Check program. 

D. Does the Updated Maintenance Plan 

Reaffirm the Adequacy of the 

Maintenance Plan? 

The updated maintenance plan 

submitted by Ohio has built upon the 

existing approved maintenance plan to 

extend the time-frame of the plan out to 

the year 2015. Ohio has used 

methodologies that meet the EPA 

guidance for emission inventory 

preparation. Additionally, as noted 

above, Ohio did not take credit for all 

emission reductions which may be 

expected in the time-frame of the 

maintenance plan, resulting in a 

conservative overestimate of future 

emissions and a conservative 

demonstration of maintenance. For 

example, Ohio did not take credit for 

the anticipated VOC controls on point 

sources which are not yet in place. 

These anticipated VOC controls will 

provide additional reductions on certain 

stationary sources in the Cincinnati area 

once the controls are implemented and 

are permanent and enforceable.

Ohio has used methods consistent 

with the previous approved 

maintenance plan. Because the revised 

maintenance plan projections for 2015 

are below the 1996 attainment year 

inventory, the update to the 

maintenance plan for Cincinnati shows 

19906 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

that the maintenance plan is adequate 

for maintaining emissions below the 

1996 attainment level. 

IV. Transportation Conformity 

Emission Budgets for the Cincinnati 

Area 

A. What Are the Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets? 

A motor vehicle emissions budget 

(MVEB) is the projected level of 

controlled emissions from the 

transportation sector (mobile sources) 

that is estimated in the SIP. The SIP 

controls emissions through regulations, 

for example, on fuels and exhaust levels 

for cars. The emissions budget 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 motor vehicle emissions 

budget in the SIP and how to revise the 

emissions budget. The transportation 

conformity rule allows the motor 

vehicle emissions budget to be changed 

as long as the total level of emissions 

from all sources remains below the 

attainment level. For maintenance plan 

submissions, the last year of the 

maintenance plan is the budget year for 

transportation conformity. The motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for the Ohio 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, 

as submitted by Ohio, are for the 2015 

year and are the projected emissions for 

the on-road mobile sources. The motor 

vehicle emissions budgets, if approved, 

will be 26.2 tons per day for VOC, and 

39.5 tons per day for NOX for the Ohio 

portion (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, 

and Warren Counties) of the CincinnatiHamilton area. These emission budgets, 

when approved in final by EPA, will be 

used for transportation conformity 

determinations. 

B. What Is a Safety Margin? 

A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference 

between the attainment level of 

emissions (from all sources) and the 

projected level of emissions (from all 

sources) in the maintenance plan. The 

attainment level of emissions is the 

level of emissions during one of the 

years in which the area met the NAAQS. 

For example: The Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area first attained the 1-hour ozone 

standard during the 1996–1999 time 

period. The State used 1996 as the year 

to determine attainment levels of 

emissions for the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area. The total emissions from point, 

area and mobile sources in 1996 equaled 

228.5 tons per day of VOC and 443.8 

tons per day of NOX. The Ohio EPA 

projected emissions out to the year 2015 

and projected a total of 191.5 tons per 

day of VOC and 348.4 tons per day of 

NOX from all sources in the Ohio 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. 

The safety margin for the Ohio portion 

of Cincinnati-Hamilton is calculated to 

be the difference between these 

amounts, or 37.0 tons per day of VOC 

and 95.4 tons per day of NOX. If the ECheck program is eliminated, the safety 

margin will be reduced because the total 

projected emissions in 2010 and 2015 

will be higher. 

The emissions are projected to 

maintain the area’s air quality consistent 

with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

safety margin is the extra emissions 

reduction below the attainment levels 

[points] that can be allocated as long as 

the total emission levels are maintained 

at or below the attainment levels. Ohio 

is not requesting allocation of the safety 

margins in the submittal. The motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for the Ohio 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area 

will be the 2015 emissions estimates for 

on-road mobile sources (motor vehicles) 

without the E-Check program. 

C. How Does This Action Change the 

Current Maintenance Plan? 

Full approval of Ohio EPA’s submittal 

will change the transportation 

conformity emissions budgets for 

mobile sources. The maintenance plan 

is designed to provide for future growth 

while still maintaining the ozone air 

quality standard. Growth in industries, 

population, and traffic is offset with 

reductions from cleaner cars and other 

emission reduction programs. Through 

the maintenance plan, the State and 

local agencies can manage and maintain 

air quality while providing for growth. 

In the submittal, Ohio has updated 

the emissions estimates and has 

requested to replace the approved 2010 

motor vehicle emissions budgets with 

new budgets for 2015 so that the 

maintenance plan will extend out 10 

years past the expected date of 

redesignation. The 2015 budgets are 

intended to replace the currently 

approved 2010 budgets rather than 

being in addition to the 2010 budgets, 

avoiding coexisting emissions budgets 

for two separate years. 

D. What Are Subarea Budgets? 

Ohio submitted these budgets as 

subarea budgets, which are only 

applicable to the Ohio portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Subarea 

budgets allow conformity to be 

determined for Ohio and Kentucky 

separately. Kentucky currently has 

approved 2010 mobile source budgets. 

In separate actions, both States (Ohio 

and Kentucky) are electing to use 

subarea budgets per 40 CFR 93.124(d) 

for the purpose of determining 

transportation conformity in the areas 

within their individual states. Subarea 

budgets still require the CincinnatiHamilton area to conduct transportation 

conformity for the entire area (both Ohio 

and Kentucky portions). However, 

subarea budgets allow transportation 

projects in each State to be implemented 

if and only if the budget test is met for 

that particular State. The new updated 

budgets for the Ohio side of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area for 2015 are: 

26.2 tons per summer day for VOC; and 

39.5 tons per summer day for NOX. 

E. Why Is the Request Approvable? 

The new 2015 motor vehicle emission 

budgets for the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area are approvable because the new 

motor vehicle emissions budgets for 

NOX and VOC maintain the total 

emissions at or below the attainment 

year inventory levels as required by the 

transportation conformity regulations. 

F. What Is the Adequacy and Approval 

Process for These Submitted Budgets? 

The budgets for the Ohio portion of 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton maintenance 

plan are being posted to EPA’s 

conformity Web site concurrent with 

this proposal. The public comment 

period will end at the same time as the 

public comment period for this 

proposed rule. In this case, EPA is 

parallel processing the maintenance 

plan update and the adequacy process 

for the budgets. In this proposed rule, 

EPA is proposing to find the budgets 

adequate and also proposing to approve 

the budgets as part of the maintenance 

plan. Because the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

area already has an approved 

maintenance plan, the budgets need to 

be approved and not just found 

adequate prior to being used for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

Therefore, the budgets cannot be used 

for transportation conformity until the 

maintenance plan update and associated 

budgets are approved in a final Federal 

Register notice.

If EPA receives adverse written 

comments with respect to the proposed 

approval of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

emissions budgets, or any other aspect 

of our proposed approval of this 

updated maintenance plan, we will 

respond to the comments on the 

emissions budgets in our final action or 

proceed with the adequacy process as a 

separate action. 

Our action on the CincinnatiHamilton emissions budgets will also be 

announced on EPA’s conformity Web 

site: http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq, 

(once there, click on the ‘‘Conformity’’

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 19907

button, then look for ‘‘Adequacy Review 

of SIP Submissions for Conformity’’). 

V. Volatile Organic Compounds 

Emission Control Regulations 

Ohio is required to ensure that all 

major VOC sources and all VOC sources 

that meet the applicability criteria in 

any of EPA’s Control Technique 

Guideline (CTG) documents in the 

Cincinnati ozone nonattainment area are 

subject to RACT regulations. Ohio’s 

existing VOC RACT regulations cover 

all CTG categories and major sources 

except those categories for which EPA 

established RACT guidance after 1990 

and for one additional source category, 

bakeries, for which it was determined 

there was a major non-CTG source in 

the nonattainment area. An analysis of 

how this RACT requirement is satisfied 

is presented in a category-by-category 

basis below. VOC RACT regulations are 

required for any facilities that exceed 

the applicability criteria specified in the 

Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) 

Reactor/Distillation, Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing, Ship Building and Ship 

Repair and Aerospace Manufacturing 

Control Technique Guideline 

documents. For the other post-1990 

categories and for bakeries, VOC RACT 

regulations are required if a facility 

including one or more of these source 

categories has greater than 100 tons 

VOC per year of potential non-CTG VOC 

emissions and the facility is not subject 

to federally enforceable operating and/

or production restrictions limiting the 

facility to less than 100 tons per year of 

non-CTG VOC emissions. A description 

of these source categories follows. 

A. Source Categories Not Requiring New 

VOC Regulations 

The following VOC source categories 

do not require any additional 

regulations because, for the CTG 

categories, there are no sources that 

exceed the CTG applicability criteria 

and for any non-CTG categories, there 

are either no major sources or any such 

sources are subject to federally 

enforceable operating and/or production 

restrictions limiting the facility to less 

than 100 tons per year of non-CTG VOC 

emissions. 

1. Industrial Cleaning Solvents 

On May 23, 2003, the Ohio EPA 

submitted to EPA a Negative Declaration 

Letter for Industrial Cleaning Solvents. 

Ohio EPA has adequately documented 

that there are no sources in the Ohio 

portion of the Cincinnati ozone 

nonattainment area with industrial 

cleaning solvent emissions that have 

total non-CTG potential emissions of 

equal to or greater than 100 tons VOC/

year. Non-CTG emissions include 

emissions from source categories for 

which there is not a CTG document and 

unregulated emissions from source 

categories covered by a CTG category. 

Ohio EPA made a thorough search to 

ensure that it considered all sources 

with solvent clean-up emissions. This 

included looking at the Standard 

Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual, 

the local Yellow Pages, a database 

associated with the Ohio EPA 

permitting system, as well as several 

trade associations and Web sites. Based 

on that review, 122 facilities were 

identified that are normally associated 

with solvent clean-up emissions. None 

of these facilities were found to have 

solvent clean-up potential emissions of 

over 50 TPY and there are no facilities 

with solvent cleaning operations that 

have combined non-CTG Potential to 

Emit (PTE) of 100 TPY or more. 

Therefore, Ohio EPA has adequately 

documented that there are no major 

non-CTG sources with solvent clean-up 

emissions and therefore there are no 

sources with solvent clean-up emissions 

that are subject to RACT. 

2. Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

Industry 

On May 23, 2003, the Ohio EPA 

submitted to EPA a Negative Declaration 

Letter for the Ship Building and Ship 

Repair Industry. The Ohio EPA has 

determined that there are no major 

sources (sources with potential 

emissions equal to or greater than 25 

tons VOC/year for this CTG category) in 

the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati ozone 

nonattainment area. 

Ohio EPA made a thorough search to 

determine whether any ship building or 

ship repair facilities were located within 

the Cincinnati ozone nonattainment 

area. This included reviewing the Ohio 

EPA air pollution control permitting 

system, contacting the local office of the 

United States Coast Guard, reviewing 

ship building trade association 

information identified on the web and, 

in addition, the Harris Directory, which 

provides SIC information for more than 

800,000 companies across the country, 

was investigated for those categories 

related to ship building and repair. 

None of the above sources of 

information resulted in the 

identification of any ship building and 

repair facilities. In addition, staff from 

the Hamilton County Department of 

Environmental Services confirmed that 

there are no military or commercial ship 

building and repair operations along the 

Ohio River, the only plausible location 

for such operations in the Ohio portion 

of the non-attainment areas. Therefore, 

Ohio EPA has adequately documented 

that there are no ship building and 

repair facilities located in the Ohio 

portion of the Cincinnati ozone nonattainment area.

3. Automobile Refinishing 

On May 23, the Ohio EPA submitted 

to EPA a Negative Declaration Letter for 

Automobile Refinishing. Ohio EPA has 

adequately documented that there are 

no automobile refinishing (also referred 

to as auto body shops) major sources in 

the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati ozone 

nonattainment area with non-CTG 

potential emissions of equal to or greater 

than 100 tons VOC/year. Non-CTG 

emissions include emissions from 

source categories for which there is not 

a CTG document and unregulated 

emissions from source categories 

covered by a CTG category. 

In order to determine whether there 

were any major automobile refinishing 

sources within the Cincinnati 

nonattainment area, Ohio EPA searched 

the SIC Code Manual for automobile 

refinishing in conjunction with the 

Harris Directory, the local and business 

to business Yellow Pages for automobile 

refinishing companies, the Ohio EPA 

permitting system, and Ohio EPA’s 

Small Business Assistance Program. 

After reviewing all of the above sources 

of information 142 automobile 

refinishing facilities were identified. Of 

the 142 facilities, 103 are each subject 

to a Permit to Install which limits 

potential VOC emissions to less than 25 

tons/year. A review of each of the 

remaining 39 facilities established that 

the potential VOC emissions from each 

of them was less than 25 tons VOC/year. 

Therefore, Ohio EPA has adequately 

documented that there are no major 

non-CTG automobile refinishing 

facilities and therefore there are no such 

facilities that are subject to RACT. 

4. Aerospace Manufacturing and 

Rework Facilities 

On October 14, 2003, the Ohio EPA 

submitted to EPA a Negative Declaration 

Letter for Aerospace Manufacturing and 

Rework Facilities. The Ohio EPA has 

determined that there are no major 

sources (sources with potential 

emissions equal to or greater than 25 

tons VOC/year for this source category) 

in the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati 

ozone nonattainment area. 

Ohio EPA made a thorough search to 

determine what aerospace 

manufacturing and/or rework facilities 

were located within the Cincinnati 

nonattainment area. Ohio EPA searched 

the Ohio EPA permitting system, the 

local and business Yellow Pages for 

aerospace manufacturing and rework 

19908 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

facilities, they utilized the web and 

found a number of trade associations, 

and used the Harris Directory, which 

provides SIC information for more than 

800,000 companies across the country. 

After reviewing all of the above 

sources of information, Ohio EPA 

identified 22 facilities in the Cincinnati 

nonattainment area that are generally 

associated with aerospace 

manufacturing and rework operations. 

These 22 facilities are listed in a table 

attached to the October 14, 2003, letter. 

In reviewing the status of those 22 

facilities, it was determined that 14 

facilities do not manufacture or have 

rework operations. Two facilities, CTL 

Aerospace and Gayston Corporation 

have federally enforceable Permits to 

Install which limit the allowable VOC 

emissions to less than 25 TPY for each 

facility. One facility has shut down all 

coating operations. The individual files 

were reviewed for the remaining 5 

facilities and it was determined that the 

potential to emit of the VOC emissions 

for operations subject to the CTG were 

less than 25 TPY. Therefore, Ohio EPA 

has adequately documented that there 

are no aerospace manufacturing and 

rework operations located in the Ohio 

portion of the Cincinnati ozone nonattainment area that exceed the 

applicability criteria for this CTG 

category and therefore there are no such 

facilities that are subject to RACT. 

5. Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Tanks 

On January 27, 2004, the Ohio EPA 

submitted to EPA a letter documenting 

that there are no volatile organic liquid 

(VOL) storage tanks, in the Cincinnati 

ozone nonattainment area, at facilities 

with the potential to emit over 100 TPY 

from all non-CTG sources that do not 

have either enforceable operating and 

production restrictions limiting actual 

VOC emissions to below 100 TPY from 

these non-CTG sources or existing 

RACT level controls on their VOL 

storage tanks. Ohio EPA performed the 

following searches to identify all VOL 

storage tanks in the Cincinnati ozone 

nonattainment area. Ohio EPA checked 

the Harris Directory for those SICs 

which may have VOL storage tanks. 

They also checked the local Yellow and 

business Yellow Pages for petroleum, 

oils and solvent storage facilities, their 

permitting system for storage tanks and 

on the web, information was obtained 

from several trade associations. 

Ohio EPA identified 151 facilities in 

the four county Cincinnati ozone 

nonattainment area with a total of 1363 

storage tanks of various sizes, that 

contained materials having a wide range 

of vapor pressures. Of those 151 

facilities, only 12 had PTE VOC 

emissions greater than 100 Tons per 

year from the facility. Of those 12, 7 

have no storage tanks that exceed the 

cutoffs (storage tanks greater than 

40,000 gallons storing a material with a 

vapor pressure greater than 0.5 pounds 

per square inch absolute (psia)) 

requiring control. One facility is subject 

to a federally enforceable Permit to 

Install limiting facility emissions to less 

than 100 tons per year and the storage 

tanks over 40,000 gallons at the other 

four facilities are subject to either 

existing petroleum liquid RACT control 

requirements or National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 

(NESHAP) regulations with control 

requirements at least as stringent as 

RACT. Therefore, no additional RACT 

control requirements are required for 

VOL storage tanks. 

6. Lithographic Printing 

On July 31, 2003, the Ohio EPA 

submitted to EPA a Negative Declaration 

Letter for Lithographic Printing. The 

Ohio EPA has determined that there are 

no major sources (sources with potential 

emissions equal to or greater than 100 

tons per year for this source category) in 

the Cincinnati ozone nonattainment 

area. 

Ohio EPA made a thorough search to 

determine what lithographic printing 

facilities were located in the Cincinnati 

ozone nonattainment area. Ohio EPA 

searched their permitting system, the 

local and business Yellow Pages for 

Lithographic printing, they utilized the 

web and reviewed trade association 

information, they used the Small 

Business Assistance program, and they 

also used the Harris Directory, which 

provides SIC information for more than 

800,000 companies.

After reviewing the above sources of 

information, Ohio EPA determined that 

there are seven facilities which perform 

web offset lithographic printing. The 

potential to emit for three of these 

facilities is less than 12 tons VOC per 

year. The other four facilities have 

federally enforceable Permits to Install 

limiting emissions to less than 100 tons 

per year for each facility. Therefore, 

Ohio EPA has adequately documented 

that there are no lithographic printing 

facilities in the Cincinnati ozone 

nonattainment area that are subject to 

RACT regulations. 

7. Plastic Parts Coating 

On March 31, 2005, the Ohio EPA 

submitted to EPA a Negative Declaration 

Letter for the coating of Automotive 

Plastic Parts. The Ohio EPA has 

determined that there are no major 

sources (sources with potential 

emissions equal to or greater than 100 

tons per year for this source category) in 

the Cincinnati ozone nonattainment 

area. 

Ohio EPA made a thorough search to 

determine what automotive plastic parts 

coating facilities were located in the 

Cincinnati ozone nonattainment area. 

Ohio EPA searched their permitting 

system, the local and business Yellow 

Pages for automotive plastic parts 

coating, they utilized the web and 

reviewed trade association information, 

they used the small business assistance 

program, and they also used the Harris 

Directory which provides SIC 

information on more than 800,000 

companies. 

After reviewing the above sources of 

information, Ohio EPA determined that 

there are three facilities which coat 

automotive plastic parts. The potential 

to emit for one of these facilities is less 

than 10 tons VOC per year and the other 

two automotive plastic parts coating 

facilities have federally enforceable 

Permits to Install limiting emissions to 

less than 100 tons per year for each 

facility. Therefore, Ohio EPA has 

adequately documented that there are 

no automotive plastic parts coating 

facilities in the Cincinnati ozone 

nonattainment area that are subject to 

RACT regulations. 

B. Source Categories for Which VOC 

RACT Regulations Have Been Proposed 

On March 8, 2005, Ohio EPA 

proposed for parallel processing VOC 

regulations for five source categories 

that are discussed below. Parallel 

processing includes proposed 

rulemaking (by EPA) on draft rules 

submitted by the State with EPA’s final 

rulemaking taking place subsequent to 

the State rules being finally adopted. 

Subsequent to proposal, Ohio EPA 

agreed to make some revisions to these 

proposed rules so that they are 

consistent with EPA VOC RACT 

requirements and therefore approvable. 

If Ohio’s final rules are not consistent 

with what has been agreed on to ensure 

that these rules represent RACT, or if 

Ohio makes other substantive changes 

to these rules, EPA will not be able to 

go final without additional rulemaking. 

A discussion of these required changes 

is included in the section for each rule. 

1. Bakeries 

On March 8, 2005, Ohio EPA 

submitted draft rule 3745–21–12 

‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions from Commercial Bakery 

Oven Facilities’’ and the accompanying 

definitions in 37–45–21–01(U). This 

draft rule applies to any commercial 

bakery oven facility in the Cincinnati 

ozone nonattainment area with a 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 19909

potential to emit VOC emissions equal 

to or greater than 100 tons per year. 

Each bakery oven subject to these 

control requirements must install and 

operate a VOC emission control system 

with an overall control efficiency of at 

least 95 percent by weight. A bakery 

oven is exempted from this control 

requirement if it has annual VOC 

emissions of less than 25.0 tons and 

average daily VOC emissions of less 

than 192 pounds. This is consistent 

with the exemption levels that were 

approved by EPA in the Maricopa 

County (Arizona) bakery rule. This rule 

contains a calculation procedure to 

determine uncontrolled potential to 

emit, a requirement to achieve 

compliance within 12 months as well as 

compliance testing requirements, 

monitoring and inspection requirements 

as well as recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. Ohio EPA agreed to delete 

the last sentence in the draft definition 

of ‘‘Commercial bakery oven facility’’

which improperly exempts 

establishments that produce bakery 

products primarily for direct sale on the 

premises to household consumers and 

that utilize only batch bakery ovens. 

This rule, with the revised definition, is 

consistent with RACT and is therefore 

approvable. 

2. Batch Processes 

On March 8, 2005, Ohio EPA 

submitted draft rule 3745–21–14 

‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions from Process Vents in Batch 

Operations’’ and the accompanying 

definitions in 3745–21–01(W). This 

draft rule applies to any batch process 

train for a variety of chemical 

manufacturing operations at facilities in 

the Cincinnati ozone nonattainment 

area with over 100 tons per year of 

potential VOC emissions. A batch 

operation is a non-continuous operation 

in which chemicals are added to the 

process in discrete intervals as opposed 

to on a continuous basis. A batch 

process train is a collection of 

equipment (e.g., reactors, filters, 

distillation columns, extractors, 

crystallizers, blend tanks, neutralizer 

tanks, digesters, surge tanks and product 

separators) configured to produce a 

specific product or intermediate by a 

batch operation. 

Exempted from the VOC control 

requirements of this rule are any unit 

operation with uncontrolled annual 

VOC emissions of less than 500 pounds 

per year and any batch process train 

containing process vents that have, in 

the aggregate, uncontrolled total annual 

mass emissions of less than 30,000 

pounds per year. 

For those process vents of batch 

process trains and unit operations 

within batch process trains subject to 

the control requirements of this rule, 

compliance can be achieved by (1) 

reducing uncontrolled VOC emissions 

by an overall efficiency of at least 90 

percent, or to 20 parts per million 

volume, per batch cycle; (2) using a 

boiler or process heater to comply with 

the above by requiring that the vent 

stream be introduced into the flame 

zone of the boiler or process heater, (3) 

using a flare provided that it meets 

Ohio’s approved flare requirements in 

3745–21–09(DD)(10)(d). In addition, 

suitable recordkeeping, reporting and 

test methods have been included. 

Compliance with these control 

requirements is required within 12 

months of the effective date of this rule. 

In order to eliminate ambiguity in 3714–

21–14(A)(4), which deals with 

compliance deadlines, Ohio EPA agreed 

to eliminate the last sentence in 3714–

21–14(A)(4) and to add ‘‘1990’’ after 

baseline year in order to specify the year 

after which actual emissions could not 

have exceeded 100 tons per year of VOC 

to make the source eligible for avoiding 

applicability to the batch rule by 

restricting emissions to less than 100 

tons VOC per year by federally 

enforceable operating restrictions.

This proposed batch rule is consistent 

with EPA VOC RACT guidance and is 

approvable provided that the changes to 

3714–21–14(A)(4) are made. 

3. Industrial Wastewater 

On March 8, 2005, Ohio EPA 

submitted draft rule 3745–21–16 

‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions from Industrial Wastewater’’

and the accompanying definitions in 

3745–21–01(Y). This draft rule applies 

to facilities in the Cincinnati ozone 

nonattainment area with the potential to 

emit over 100 tons VOC per year that 

have operations in one of several 

industrial categories (such as organic 

chemicals, pesticides and 

pharmaceutical manufacturing) and that 

generate process wastewater. 

The proposed industrial wastewater 

rule contains the following control 

requirements: Each individual drain 

system shall be covered and, if vented, 

be routed through a closed vent system 

to a control device, or each drain shall 

be equipped with water seal controls or 

a tightly fitting cap or plug, each surface 

impoundment that receives, manages or 

treats an affected VOC wastewater 

stream must be equipped with a cover 

and a closed-vent system which routes 

the VOC vapors to a control device or 

the surface impoundment must be 

equipped with a floating flexible 

membrane cover, each oil-water 

separator shall be equipped with a fixed 

roof and a closed vent system that 

routes the vapors to a control device or 

a floating roof, each portable container 

must be covered, each wastewater tank 

shall have a fixed roof, a fixed roof and 

a closed-vent system that routes the 

VOC vapors to a control device, a fixed 

roof and an internal floating roof, or an 

external floating roof, and each 

treatment process must meet the 

applicable requirements described 

above along with other requirements 

such as venting the gases from the 

treatment process to a control device 

designed and operated to reduce 

wastewater VOC emissions by 90%. 

There is also an alternative control 

option requiring EPA approval. 

There are also inspection and 

monitoring requirements, a list of 

approved test methods, recordkeeping 

requirements and a requirement that 

compliance be achieved within 12 

months from the effective date of the 

rule. 

Ohio EPA agreed to make the 

following changes to its draft rule: 

revise the definition of ‘‘Affected VOC’’

in 3745–21–01(Y)(3) to ‘‘means VOC 

with a Henry’s Law Constant greater 

than * * *,’’ delete the last sentence in 

3745–21–16(A)(4), add ‘‘1990’’ before 

‘‘baseline year’’ (for the reason 

described in the prior section) and 

delete the phrase ‘‘or (D)(8)’’ from 3745–

21–16(D)(1) as (D)(8) is a control option 

for treatment processes and was not 

intended to be an alternative to the 

control requirements in (D)(3) through 

(D)(7). This rule was largely based on 

the Texas wastewater rule that was 

approved by EPA. We believe that the 

rule, with the modifications identified is 

approvable as RACT. 

4. SOCMI Reactors/Distillation Units 

On March 8, 2005, Ohio EPA 

submitted draft rule 3745–21–13 

‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions from Reactors and 

Distillation Units Employed in SOCMI 

Chemical Production’’ and the 

accompanying definitions in 3745–21–

01(V). This rule applies to any reactor 

or distillation unit within a process unit 

that produces a SOCMI chemical and 

that is located in the Cincinnati ozone 

nonattainment area. Any reactor or 

distillation unit in a process unit with 

a design capacity of less than 1,100 tons 

per year of chemicals produced is 

exempt from the control requirements of 

this rule. This rule also exempts any 

reactor or distillation unit that is 

regulated by either of two of Ohio’s 

existing VOC RACT rules or three new 

source performance standards, each of 

19910 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

which have federally enforceable 

control requirements that are at least as 

stringent as the control requirements for 

this SOCMI rule. Each process vent is 

classified according to characteristics of 

the process vent stream (VOC 

concentration, flow rate, and the total 

resource effectiveness (TRE)) prior to a 

control device. The TRE is a costeffectiveness tool established by EPA to 

determine if the annual cost of 

controlling a gas stream is reasonable 

based on the emission reduction that 

can be achieved by a combustion-type 

control device. 

One of the following controls is 

required for those process vents for 

which control is required, based upon 

the above: Discharge to a properly 

operating flare, discharge to the flame 

zone of a boiler or process heater with 

a heat input capacity of over 150 million 

BTU per hour, discharge to a boiler or 

process heater as the primary fuel or 

with the primary fuel, discharge to a 

control device that reduces VOC 

emissions by at least 98% or emits VOC 

at a concentration less than 20 ppmv, 

achieve and maintain a TRE index value 

greater than 1.0 (for which no additional 

control is warranted), or discharge to an 

existing combustion device with a 90% 

reduction efficiency. 

Compliance is required within 12 

months of the effective date of the rule. 

This rule also includes compliance 

testing, TRE determination testing and 

monitoring requirements, as well as 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

Ohio EPA agreed to revise 3714–21–

13(A)(2) and add a new (A)(3) that 

specifies that for those sources that are 

exempt from the requirements of the 

SOCMI rule because they are subject to 

another rule, they must be subject to the 

limits of that rule. Ohio EPA also agreed 

to delete (F)(1)(f) which allows emission 

reduction credit for a recovery device 

that is part of the process. 

This proposed VOC rule is consistent 

with EPA RACT guidance and is 

approvable provided that the indicated 

changes are made. 

5. Wood Furniture Manufacturing 

On March 8, 2005, Ohio EPA 

submitted draft rule 3745–21–15 

‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions from Wood Furniture 

Manufacturing Operations’’ and the 

accompanying definitions in 3745–21–

01(X). This draft rule applies to any 

facility that has wood furniture 

manufacturing operations with a 

potential to emit 25 tons VOC per year 

and is located in the Cincinnati ozone 

nonattainment area. 

The five compliance options for wood 

finishing operations are: (1) A VOC 

content limit of 0.8 pound VOC per 

pound of solids for topcoats only, (2) 

VOC content limits for topcoats and 

sealers, wherein topcoats are subject to 

1.8 pounds VOC per gallon of solids or 

2.0 pounds VOC per gallon of solids for 

an acid-cured alkyd amino conversion 

topcoat, and sealers are subject to 1.9 

pounds VOC per gallon of solids or 2.3 

pounds VOC per gallon of solids for an 

acid-cured alkyd amino sealer, (3) a 

VOC emission control system for 

topcoats and/or sealers that is 

equivalent to the VOC content limits of 

the above options, (4) daily VOC 

emissions limits for topcoats, and (5) 

daily VOC emissions limit for topcoats, 

sealers, and other finishing materials. 

The compliance options associated with 

daily VOC emissions are based on a 

daily summation of actual VOC 

emissions not exceeding 90% of the 

daily summation of VOC emissions 

allowed under compliance options (1) 

or (2). This rule also allows 30-day 

averaging for dip coaters.

This rule also requires a work practice 

implementation plan that develops 

environmentally desirable work 

practices including: An operator 

training course, a leak inspection and 

maintenance plan, a cleaning and 

washoff accounting system, spray booth 

cleaning restrictions, storage 

requirements for coatings, coating 

application requirements, line cleaning 

and spray gun cleaning procedures and 

emission control practices from washoff 

operations. 

Compliance is required 12 months 

after the effective date of this rule, 

which also includes compliance testing 

and monitoring requirements for a VOC 

emission control system, as well as 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. This rule is consistent 

with VOC RACT guidance and 

approvable provided that Ohio EPA 

revises its viscosity provisions, as 

agreed, so that viscosity cannot, by 

itself, be used to establish the VOC 

content for dip coaters. 

VI. Changes in the Ohio SIP To Support 

the Removal of Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance Programs in the 

Cincinnati and Dayton Areas 

A. What Changes to the Ohio SIP Have 

Been Submitted To Support the 

Removal of the I/M Programs in the 

Cincinnati and Dayton Areas? 

Ohio EPA submitted a revision to the 

Cincinnati and Dayton-Springfield 

portions of the Ohio SIP on April 4, 

2005. This revision requests that the I/

M programs in Ohio, also known as the 

E-Check programs, be discontinued in 

the Cincinnati and Dayton-Springfield 

areas by December 31, 2005. The 

revision also requests that the E-Check 

program regulations be moved from the 

active control measures portion of the 

SIP to the contingency measures portion 

of the Cincinnati and DaytonSpringfield 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plans. 

The Cincinnati and DaytonSpringfield areas are required to 

implement ‘‘basic’’ I/M programs under 

section 182(b)(4) of the Act because they 

were originally designated as moderate 

1-hour nonattainment areas. In order to 

maximize NOX, VOC and CO emissions 

reductions from the I/M program, Ohio 

EPA chose to implement an ‘‘enhanced’’

program in those areas and has 

incorporated an on-board diagnostic 

(OBD) component into the programs. 

EPA fully approved Ohio’s I/M 

programs on April 4, 1995 (60 FR 

16989). The E-Check programs began 

operation on January 2, 1996, to help 

meet nonattainment area requirements 

for the ozone NAAQS effective at the 

time. As noted in other portions of this 

action, both the Cincinnati and DaytonSpringfield areas have either been 

redesignated to attainment for the 1-

hour ozone standard, or are in the 

process of doing so. Both areas have 

developed maintenance plans showing 

how they plan on maintaining the 1-

hour ozone standard. In its submittal, 

Ohio EPA is modifying these 

maintenance plans showing that the 1-

hour standard can be maintained 

through 2015 in the Cincinnati area 

without use of emission reductions 

associated with the E-Check program 

beyond December 31, 2005 and through 

2005 for Dayton-Springfield. 

B. What Authorities Apply To Removing 

the Cincinnati and Dayton I/M Programs 

From Active Status and Moving Them to 

Contingency Measures in the Ohio SIP? 

Section 110(l) of the Act states that 

‘‘The Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of this Act.’’ The states’

obligation to demonstrate attainment of 

each of the NAAQS is considered as 

‘‘any applicable requirement(s) 

concerning attainment.’’ A 

demonstration is necessary to show that 

this revision will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS, including the relatively new 8-

hour ozone and PM2.5 standards, or any 

other requirement of the Act. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 19911

With respect to the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, the Dayton-Springfield area 

has met the standard and was 

redesignated to attainment on May 5, 

1995 (60 FR 22289). EPA is proposing 

approval of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

redesignation request in today’s action. 

As noted elsewhere, EPA has approved 

1-hour ozone maintenance plans for 

both areas. These approved 

maintenance plans show that control 

measures in place in these areas are 

sufficient for overall emissions to 

remain beneath the attainment level of 

emissions until the end of the 

maintenance period, in these cases 2005 

for Dayton-Springfield and 2010 for 

Cincinnati-Hamilton. In accordance 

with the Act and EPA redesignation 

guidance, however, states are free to 

adjust control strategies in the 

maintenance plan as long as they can 

demonstrate that overall emissions 

remain below the attainment level of 

emissions. By making such a 

demonstration, control programs may be 

discontinued and removed from the SIP. 

At a minimum, however, section 

175A(d) of the Act requires that 

contingency measures in the 

maintenance plan include all measures 

in the SIP for the area before that area 

was redesignated to attainment. Since 

the E-Check program was in the SIP 

prior to redesignation to attainment for 

ozone, the E-Check program must be 

listed in the contingency portion of the 

1-hour ozone maintenance plan as 

required by section 175A(d). As part of 

this action, Ohio EPA is making a 

demonstration showing continued 

maintenance of the 1-hour ozone 

standard without taking credit for 

reductions from the Dayton-Springfield 

and Cincinnati E-Check programs.

Provisions in EPA’s I/M rule, set forth 

in 40 CFR section 51.372(c) provide 

additional requirements that apply to 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton and DaytonSpringfield E-Check program situation. 

These provisions were published 

January 5, 1995, at 60 FR 1735. The 

provisions indicate that certain areas 

seeking redesignation may submit only 

the authority for an I/M program rather 

than an implemented program in 

satisfaction of the applicable I/M 

requirements. Under these I/M rule 

provisions, a basic I/M area which has 

been redesignated to attainment for the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS can convert the

I/M program to a contingency measure 

as part of the area’s 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan, notwithstanding the 

new antibacksliding provisions in EPA’s 

recent 8-hour ozone implementation 

rule. Ohio has retained the necessary 

legal authority to meet this requirement, 

and has requested that E-Check be 

converted to a contingency measure in 

both areas. A basic I/M area which is 

designated nonattainment for the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, and which is not 

required to have an I/M program based 

on its 8-hour ozone designation, 

continues to have the option to move its 

I/M program to a contingency measure 

as long as the 8-hour nonattainment area 

can demonstrate that doing so will not 

interfere with its ability to comply with 

any NAAQS or any other applicable 

CAA requirement pursuant to section 

110(l) of the Act. For further details on 

the application of 8-hour ozone antibacksliding provisions to basic I/M 

programs in 1-hour ozone maintenance 

areas, please refer to the May 12, 2004, 

EPA Memorandum from Tom Helms, 

Group Leader, Ozone Policy and 

Strategies Group, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, and Leila H. 

Cook, Group Leader, State Measures and 

Conformity Group, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, to the 

Air Program Managers, the subject of 

which is ‘‘1-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plans Containing Basic I/M Programs.’’

A copy of this memorandum may be 

obtained at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

oarpg/t1pgm.html or on RME, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system at http://docket.epa.gov/

rmepub/.

C. What Is EPA’s Analysis of Ohio’s 

Demonstrations of No Interference With 

the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS in the 

Cincinnati and Dayton Areas? 

The April 4, 2005 Ohio SIP revision 

seeking removal of the E-Check program 

includes an evaluation for the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS of the potential emission 

impacts that would result from removal 

of the Cincinnati and DaytonSpringfield E-Check program as an 

active control measure in the SIP. For 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the submittal 

provides VOC and NOX emission 

inventory data for the Ohio portion of 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton CMSA 

nonattainment area for 1996, the 

attainment year for the area, and 

projected emission inventories for 2005, 

2010, and 2015. The projected mobile 

source emission inventories for 2010, 

and 2015 do not include emission 

reduction credits from the operation of 

the E-Check Program after 2005. As 

shown in Tables 4 and 5 below, 

projected, total VOC and NOX emissions 

for 2005, 2010, and 2015 for the Ohio 

portion of the Cincinnati 1-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Area all fall below the 

emissions levels in 1996, when the area 

met the 1-hour standard. These VOC 

and NOX emission totals include 

emissions from the point, area, mobile, 

and non-road source categories. The 

estimates are also quite conservative as 

they do not include emissions 

reductions from certain control 

programs, namely the RACT rules for 

VOC and NOX reductions achieved from 

implementing regulations to meet EPA’s 

NOX SIP call. Thus, the area 

demonstrates continued maintenance of 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS without the ECheck Program in the CincinnatiHamilton area.

TABLE 4.—TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS FOR THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON 1-HOUR OZONE MAINTENANCE AREA

VOC (in tpsd) 

Year 

1990 1996 2005 2010 2015 

Total VOC for Maintenance Area ...................................................................... 265.7 228.5 200.1 191.8 191.5 

VOC Increase w/o E-Check Program ................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 2.1 2.6 

Total VOC for Maintenance w/o E-Check .................................................. 265.7 228.5 200.1 193.9 194.1 

TABLE 5.—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON 1-HOUR OZONE MAINTENANCE AREA

NOX (in tpsd) 

Year 

1990 1996 2005 2010 2015 

Total NOX for Maintenance Area ....................................................................... 440.5 443.8 397.6 373.0 348.4 

19912 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5.—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON 1-HOUR OZONE MAINTENANCE AREA—Continued

NOX (in tpsd) 

Year 

1990 1996 2005 2010 2015 

NOX Increase w/o E-Check Program ................................................................ .................. .................. .................. 3.6 4.5 

Total NOX for Maintenance w/o E-Check .................................................. 440.5 443.8 397.6 376.6 352.9 

Also for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, 

the submittal provides VOC and NOX

emission inventory data for the DaytonSpringfield CMSA (i.e., Clark, Greene, 

and Montgomery Counties) for 1990, the 

attainment year for the area, and revised 

projected emission inventories for 1996, 

2000, and 2005. The revised projected 

mobile source emission inventories for 

2005 do not include emission reduction 

credits from the operation of the ECheck Program after 2004. As shown in 

Tables 6 and 7 below, projected, total 

VOC and NOX emissions for 2005 for 

the Dayton-Springfield 1-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Area all fall below the 

emissions levels in 1990, the attainment 

year for the area. These VOC and NOX

emission totals include emissions from 

the point, area, mobile, and non-road 

source categories. The estimates are also 

quite conservative as they do not 

include emissions reductions from 

certain control programs, namely the 

RACT rules for VOC and NOX

reductions achieved from implementing 

regulations to meet EPA’s NOX SIP call. 

There are 2 issues with the 1-hour 

ozone demonstration for the Dayton area 

that must be addressed in order for us 

to approve the maintenance plan 

changes for Dayton. In the April 4, 2005 

submittal, the Ohio EPA provides 

emissions estimates for the Dayton area 

for 1996, 2000, and 2005. In order to 

show that the area can maintain the 

ozone standard for an additional ten 

years, the Ohio EPA must estimate area 

wide emissions for Dayton for the year 

2015. Additionally, the state must 

recalculate the attainment year mobile 

source emissions, in Dayton’s case for 

the year 1990, using EPA’s Mobile 6 

model. This will provide the necessary 

information needed to show whether 

the area can stay within the attainment 

level of emissions in the future without 

implementing the E-Check program.

If Ohio EPA provides this 

information, we are proposing to find 

that Ohio has demonstrated that 

termination of the I/M program in the 

Dayton area will not interfere with 

attainment and maintenance of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS in this area 

provided that Ohio extends such 

demonstration through 2015 or later and 

corrects the demonstration to use 

MOBILE 6 estimates for mobile source 

emission factors for the attainment year 

(1990) and provides a revised 

demonstration to the EPA prior to our 

final rulemaking.

TABLE 6.—TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS FOR THE DAYTON-SPRINGFIELD 1-HOUR OZONE MAINTENANCE AREA

VOC (in tpsd) 

Year 

1990 1996 2000 2005 

Total VOC for Maintenance Area ............................................................................................ 301.1 270.6 282.9 290.9 

VOC Increase w/o E-Check Program ...................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 1.2 

Total VOC for Maintenance w/o E-Check ........................................................................ 301.1 270.6 282.9 292.1 

TABLE 7.—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE DAYTON-SPRINGFIELD 1-HOUR OZONE MAINTENANCE AREA

NOX (in tpsd) 

Year 

1990 1996 2000 2005 

Total NOX for Maintenance Area .......................................................................................... 129.6 115.6 117.1 111.1 

NOX Increase w/o E-Check Program .................................................................................... .................. .................. .................. 0.95 

Total NOX for Maintenance w/o E-Check ...................................................................... 129.6 115.6 117.1 112.05 

D. Has Ohio Demonstrated That 

Terminating the I/M Programs in the 

Cincinnati and Dayton Areas Will Not 

Interfere With the Expeditious 

Attainment and Maintenance of the 8-

Hour Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter 

NAAQS? 

In addition to demonstrating that 

movement of the E-Check program to a 

contingency measure would not 

interfere with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, 

Ohio also needs to demonstrate that 

removing the E-Check Program as an 

active control measure from the SIP in 

the Cincinnati-Hamilton and DaytonSpringfield areas would not interfere 

with the new 8-hour ozone and fine 

particulate matter standards. In a future 

action, Ohio will be submitting 

supplemental information providing a 

demonstration that removal of the ECheck Program will not interfere with 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. At this time, EPA is 

proposing to approve the State’s 

demonstration that E-Check is not 

needed for purposes of the 1-hour ozone 

standard, but the State must submit, and 

EPA must approve, a demonstration on 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 prior to 

program discontinuation. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 19913

VII. Conclusions on the Redesignation 

of the Cincinnati Area to Attainment of 

the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 

Removal of the Vehicle I/M Programs in 

the Cincinnati and Dayton Areas 

A. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding 

Ohio’s Request for the Redesignation of 

the Cincinnati Area to Attainment of the 

1-Hour Ozone NAAQS? 

Based on the discussions of 

compliance with the redesignation 

criteria above, rulemakings concerning 

the redesignation of the Cincinnati area 

and on the fact that Ohio is in the 

process of completing the adoption of 

VOC RACT regulations meeting the 

RACT requirements of the CAA, we 

conclude that Ohio and the Cincinnati 

area will comply with the criteria for 

redesignation to attainment of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, we are 

proposing to approve this redesignation 

if Ohio meets the conditions noted in 

this proposed action. The process of 

redesignation for the 1-hour ozone 

standard must be completed prior to the 

revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard 

on June 15, 2005. 

We also conclude that the current 

ozone air quality in the CincinnatiHamilton area supports continuation of 

the determination of attainment for the 

Cincinnati area and our conclusion that 

certain planning requirements of the 

CAA are not applicable to this area. 

B. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding 

Ohio’s Ozone Maintenance Plan for the 

Cincinnati Area? 

Based on our review of the 

maintenance plan proposed by the 

State, including a demonstration of 

maintenance through 2015 and a revised 

contingency plan that includes an I/M 

program as a contingency measure 

following the termination of the 

program in the Cincinnati area, we 

conclude that Ohio has proposed a 

maintenance plan that meets the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA. Assuming that Ohio adopts this 

maintenance plan as proposed, we 

propose to approve this maintenance 

plan as a SIP revision. If the State 

substantially revises the maintenance 

plan from the version proposed by the 

State and reviewed here, this will result 

in the need for additional proposed 

rulemaking on maintenance plan. 

C. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding 

the VOC and NOX Emission Inventories 

Used To Support Ohio’s Ozone 

Redesignation Request? 

Based on emission estimates 

submitted to support Ohio’s ozone 

redesignation requests for the Cincinnati 

area, we conclude that Ohio has met the 

requirements of section 182(a)(3)(A) of 

the CAA for periodic emissions 

inventory updates. We are proposing to 

approve the 1996, 1999, and 2002 

emission estimates summarized in this 

proposed rule for the Cincinnati area as 

the updated periodic emission 

inventory estimates. 

D. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding 

Ohio’s Draft RACT Rules? 

For five source categories, we 

conclude that RACT regulations 

proposed by the State are approvable 

provided that the State makes the rule 

changes noted above in the final 

adopted versions of the rules. The five 

source categories covered by these draft 

rules are: Bakeries; chemical 

manufacturing batch processes; 

industrial wastewater treatment; SOCMI 

reactors and distillation units; and wood 

furniture manufacturing. Significant 

changes in the RACT rules from the 

versions reviewed here, other than the 

changes negotiated between the State 

and the EPA and described in this 

notice, will result in the need for 

additional proposed rulemaking on 

these RACT regulations. 

We conclude that the following VOC 

source categories do not require any 

additional regulations: Industrial 

solvent cleaning; shipbuilding and ship 

repair industry; automobile refinishing; 

aerospace manufacturing and rework 

facilities; volatile organic liquid storage 

tanks; lithographic printing; and plastic 

parts coating. For these source 

categories, either there are no sources 

with VOC emissions exceeding the 

cutoffs for major sources under EPA and 

CAA RACT policy, or the existing 

sources have Federally enforceable 

operating and/or production restrictions 

limiting the facility emissions to levels 

below major source size cutoffs. 

Assuming the State adopts RACT 

rules that we can approve in final, we 

conclude that the State will comply in 

full with the RACT requirements of the 

CAA.

E. What Are Our Conclusions 

Concerning the Elimination of I/M 

Programs in the Cincinnati and Dayton 

Areas? 

We are proposing that the State has 

demonstrated that eliminating the I/M 

programs in the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

and Dayton-Springfield areas will not 

interfere with the attainment and 

maintenance of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. We are proposing such 

conclusion provided that Ohio submits 

additional documentation to the EPA 

prior to our final rulemaking on this 

issue that extends the DaytonSpringfield emission estimates through 

2015 or later and corrects the 

demonstration to use MOBILE 6 

estimates for mobile source emissions 

for the attainment year (1990). This 

demonstration does not complete the 

State’s demonstration obligations under 

section 110(l) of the CAA. The State 

must also demonstrate that the 

elimination of these emission reduction 

programs will not interfere with the 

attainment and maintenance of the 8-

hour ozone NAAQS and the fine 

particulate NAAQS and with the 

attainment and maintenance of other air 

quality standards and criteria of the 

CAA. Ohio EPA has committed to 

complete this demonstration before I/M 

program discontinuation in the 

Cincinnati and Dayton-Springfield 

areas. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866 Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

Executive Order 13211 Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy 

action,’’ this action is also not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed action merely proposes 

to approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Because this rule proposes to approve 

pre-existing requirements under state 

law and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

19914 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Executive Order 13175 Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 13132 Federalism 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

states, on the relationship between the 

national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. 

Executive Order 13045 Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This proposed rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.).

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas.

Dated: April 7, 2005. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 05–7509 Filed 4–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 70 and 71

[OAR–2003–0180; FRL–7900–7] 

RIN 2060–AM63

Request for Comment on Potentially 

Inadequate Monitoring in Clean Air Act 

Applicable Requirements and on 

Methods To Improve Such Monitoring; 

Notice of Public Comment Period 

Extension

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPR); notice of public 

comment period extension. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing that 

the closing date of the public comment 

period for the advanced notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPR) ‘‘Request 

for Comment on Potentially Inadequate 

Monitoring in Clean Air Act Applicable 

Requirements and on Methods To 

Improve Such Monitoring’’ (70 FR 7905, 

February 16, 2005) is extended sixty 

days from April 18, 2005 until June 17, 

2005. After publishing this ANPR, the 

EPA received a letter dated March 11, 

2005, from Environmental Integrity 

Project and several other environmental 

and citizens’ organizations requesting a 

120-day extension of the public 

comment period to allow the public to 

provide more meaningful comments, 

given the broad scope of the ANPR. The 

EPA believes it is reasonable to extend 

the public comment period for sixty 

days and is hereby granting the 

requested extension for that period.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by 

June 17, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. OAR–2003–

0180, by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: Send electronic mail (email) to EPA Docket Center at a-and-rdocket@epamail.epa.gov. 

• Fax: Send faxes to EPA Docket 

Center at (202) 566–1741. 

• Air and Radiation Docket, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation 

Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA West Building, Room 

B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. OAR–2003–0180. The 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.epa.gov/edocket, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA 

EDOCKET and the Federal 

regulations.gov Web sites are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information