50708 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

LEWIS has passed until and including 

11:59 p.m. on September 11, 2010. The 

opposite connecting spans on the south 

side while not under repair will 

continue to open for vessels; 

(3) Closed to vessels beginning at 6 

a.m. on September 12, 2010 until and 

including 11:59 p.m. on October 6, 

2010; however, vessels openings will be 

provided if at least 48 hours advance 

notice is given; 

(4) Single leaf operation on the 

northeast side span starting at 5 a.m. on 

October 8, 2010 until and including 

11:59 p.m. on October 28, 2010. The 

opposite connecting spans on the south 

side while not under repair will 

continue to open for vessels; 

(5) Closed to vessels beginning at 6 

a.m. on October 29, 2010 until and 

including 11:59 p.m. on December 1, 

2010; however, vessels openings will be 

provided if at least 48 hours advance 

notice is given. 

Coast Guard vessels bound for the 

Coast Guard Yard at Curtis Bay, as well 

as a significant amount of commercial 

vessel traffic, must pass through the 

Pennington Avenue Bridge. The Coast 

Guard has carefully coordinated the 

restrictions with the Yard and the 

commercial users of the waterway. 

Additionally, the Coast Guard will 

inform unexpected users of the 

waterway through our Local and 

Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the 

closure periods for the bridge so that 

vessels can arrange their transits to 

minimize any impact caused by the 

temporary deviation. 

Vessels may pass underneath the 

bridge while the bridge is in the closed 

position. There are no alternate routes 

for vessels transiting this section of 

Curtis Creek and the drawbridge will be 

able to open in the event of an 

emergency. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: August 5, 2010. 

Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., 

Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth 

Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20250 Filed 8–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0529; FRL–9189–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Transportation Conformity 

Consultation Requirement 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the 

Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted on June 4, 2010. This revision 

consists of criteria and procedures 

related to the State’s interagency 

consultation and certain control and 

mitigation measures addressing 

‘‘Transportation Conformity.’’ This 

approval will meet a requirement of the 

Clean Air Act (Act) and EPA’s 

Transportation Conformity regulations. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective October 18, 2010, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

September 16, 2010. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–0529, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: bortzer.jay@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2054. 

4. Mail: Jay Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Jay Elmer Bortzer, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

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

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010– 

0529. 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.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This Facility is open 

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

through Friday, excluding Federal 

holidays. We recommend that you 

telephone Patricia Morris, 

Environmental Scientist, at (312) 353– 

8656 before visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Morris, Environmental 

Scientist, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8656, 

morris.patricia@epa.gov. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 50709 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is Transportation Conformity? 

II. What is the Background for This Action? 

III. What Did the State Submit and How Did 

We Evaluate It? 

IV. What Action is EPA Taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is Transportation Conformity? 

Transportation Conformity is required 

under Section 176(c) of the Act to 

ensure that Federally supported 

highway, transit projects, and other 

activities are consistent with (conform 

to) the purpose of the approved SIP. 

Transportation Conformity currently 

applies to areas that are designated 

nonattainment and those areas 

redesignated to attainment after 1990 

(maintenance areas), with maintenance 

plans developed under section 175A of 

the Act for the following transportationrelated criteria pollutants: Ozone, 

particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), 

carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2). Conformity to the 

purpose of the SIP means that 

transportation activities will not cause 

new air quality violations, worsen 

existing violations or delay timely 

attainment of the relevant National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The Federal Transportation 

Conformity regulations (Federal Rule) 

are found in 40 CFR part 93 subpart A, 

and provisions related to conformity 

SIPs are found in 40 CFR 51.390. 

II. What is the Background for This 

Action? 

On August 10, 2005, the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU) (Pub. L. 109–59) 

was signed into law. SAFETEA–LU 

revised certain provisions of section 

176(c) of the Act, related to 

Transportation Conformity. Prior to 

SAFETEA–LU, States were required to 

address all of the Federal Rule’s 

provisions in their conformity SIPs. 

After SAFETEA–LU, SIPs were required 

to contain all or portions of only the 

following three sections of the Federal 

Rule, modified as appropriate to each 

State’s circumstances: 40 CFR 93.105 

(consultation procedures); 40 CFR 

93.122(a)(4)(ii) (written commitments to 

implement certain kinds of control 

measures); and 40 CFR 93.125(c) 

(written commitments to implement 

certain kinds of mitigation measures). 

Pursuant to SAFETEA–LU, States are no 

longer required to submit conformity 

SIP revisions that address the other 

sections of the Federal Rule. 

III. What Did the State Submit and How 

Did We Evaluate It? 

A public hearing on the 

Transportation Conformity SIP was held 

on May 11, 2010 in Indianapolis, 

Indiana. Also, a 30-day public comment 

period was announced which closed on 

May 14, 2010. No comments were 

received from the public. EPA, however, 

made comments on three items which 

needed clarification. 

On June 4, 2010, the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) submitted a 

revision to its SIP for Transportation 

Conformity purposes. Indiana provided 

the requested clarifications in the cover 

letter. 

The SIP revision consists of nine 

Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO) board resolutions, one MPO 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), 

one State and Federal agency statewide 

MOU and an interagency consultation 

group conformity consultation guidance 

document, which will constitute the 

Indiana SIP for transportation 

conformity purposes. The MPO board 

resolutions are for the Delaware-Muncie 

Metropolitan Plan Commission, the 

Evansville Metropolitan Planning 

Organization, the Indianapolis 

Metropolitan Planning Organization, the 

Michiana Area Council of Governments, 

the Madison County Council of 

Government, the Northeastern Indiana 

Regional Coordinating Council, the 

Northwestern Indiana Regional 

Planning Commission, the OhioKentucky-Indiana Regional Council of 

Governments, and the West Central 

Indiana Economic Development District. 

The Kentuckiana Regional Planning and 

Development Agency is the MPO that 

has a signed MOU as the consultation 

agreement. 

The resolutions and MOUs were 

executed among the State of Indiana, the 

MPOs in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas, and the Federal 

agencies which have responsibility for 

undertaking transportation conformity 

in conjunction with transportation 

planning activities. The statewide MOU 

adopts the individual MPO resolutions, 

covers rural nonattainment and 

maintenance areas and provides for 

consultation among and between State 

and Federal agencies. These resolutions 

and agreements which make up the SIP 

revision address the three provisions of 

the Federal Rule required under 

SAFETEA–LU: 40 CFR 93.105 

(consultation procedures); 40 CFR 

93.122(a)(4)(ii) (certain control 

measures); and 40 CFR 93.125(c) 

(mitigation measures). Each of the 

individual MPO resolutions and the 

MOUs provide detailed consultation 

procedures specific to each MPO area 

and adopted by the participants in that 

MPO area. 

Indiana has included several bi-State 

areas. The Louisville area is a bi-State 

Indiana/Kentucky area and the MOU for 

this area provides for consultation with 

all parties in both States. The MOU has 

been submitted by Kentucky as part of 

the Kentucky transportation conformity 

SIP, and EPA approved the SIP on April 

21, 2010 (75 FR 20780). The same MOU 

has been submitted by Indiana as part 

of the Indiana transportation conformity 

SIP. 

The Cincinnati area is also a bi-State 

area with portions of Indiana and 

Kentucky included in the Cincinnati, 

Ohio ozone and PM nonattainment 

areas. The resolution passed by the 

MPO board for this area provides for 

consultation between Ohio State and 

local agencies and Indiana State 

agencies and Federal agencies in both 

Indiana and Ohio. The MPO has a 

separate agreement for the Kentucky 

portion to provide for consultation on 

Kentucky conformity determinations. A 

separate agreement is acceptable 

because the SIPs provide separate motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for the 

Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati area. 

The Ohio and Indiana portions of the 

Cincinnati area have combined motor 

vehicle emissions budgets and thus 

must work together for conformity 

determinations. 

EPA has evaluated this SIP revision 

including the nine MPO board 

resolutions, the one MPO MOU, and the 

one statewide MOU, and has 

determined that the nine MPO board 

resolutions and the MOU for KIPDA 

have met the requirements of the 

Federal transportation conformity rules 

as described in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart 

T, and 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A. As 

EPA has previously informed Indiana, 

there were three wording clarifications 

needed for consistency between the 

State and Federal agency MOU and the 

Conformity Rule. EPA believes that the 

State of Indiana has satisfactorily 

addressed these concerns, as follows. 

First, the statewide MOU seemed to 

have inadvertently left off a sentence in 

the conflict resolution section that 

would allow the Governor of Indiana to 

delegate the decision on conflicts. In 

response, IDEM has agreed to 

incorporate the recommended language 

into a future revision of the MOU; and, 

in the interim, IDEM agrees to resolve 

conflicts in accordance with language 

provided by EPA. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
50710 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

In addition, the statewide MOU did 

not address the cost of documents to the 

public (if there is a cost) in accordance 

with EPA’s fee schedule in 49 CFR 7.43. 

IDEM responded by citing Indiana’s 

statutory authority which it believes is 

consistent with the Federal fee rule, and 

agreed to also clarify this matter in a 

future MOU revision. 

Finally, EPA noted that IDEM had not 

provided sufficient detail about the 

public process for ‘‘hot spot analysis’’ 

reviews. Indiana responded by citing a 

specific policy document, the ‘‘INDOT 

Public Involvement Manual,’’ which 

details the public participation process. 

Indiana has satisfied the public 

participation and comprehensive 

interagency consultation requirement 

during development and adoption of the 

resolutions at the MPO level and also 

with a public hearing and public 

comment on the entire SIP on May 11, 

2010 and public comment period until 

May 14, 2010. EPA’s rule requires the 

States to develop their own processes 

and procedures to be followed by the 

MPO, State Departments of 

Transportation (DOTs), and United 

States Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) in consulting with the State 

and local air quality agencies and EPA 

before making conformity 

determinations. 

The conformity SIP revision must also 

include processes and procedures for 

the State and local air quality agencies 

and EPA to coordinate the development 

of applicable SIPs with MPOs, State 

DOTs, and USDOT. 

EPA has reviewed the submittal to 

assure consistency with the CAA as 

amended by SAFETEA–LU and EPA 

regulations (40 CFR Part 93 and 40 CFR 

51.390) governing State procedures for 

transportation conformity and 

interagency consultation. Our review 

used the document ‘‘Guidance for 

Developing Transportation Conformity 

SIPs’’ dated January 2009, including 

‘‘Appendix A: Checklist for Developing 

a Conformity SIP’’, and has concluded 

that the submittal is approvable. 

IV. What Action is EPA Taking? 

For the reasons set forth above, EPA 

is taking action under section 110 of the 

Act to approve the Indiana SIP revision 

for Transportation Conformity, which 

was submitted on June 4, 2010. 

We are publishing this action without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

State plan if relevant adverse written 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective October 18, 2010 without 

further notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by September 

16, 2010. If we receive such comments, 

we will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

If we do not receive any comments, this 

action will be effective October 18, 

2010. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Act, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Act; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 18, 2010. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 50711 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 5, 2010. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart P—Indiana 

■ 2. Part 52 is amended by adding a new 

§ 52.799 to read as follows: 

§ 52.799 Transportation conformity. 

On June 4, 2010, Indiana submitted 

the Transportation Conformity 

Consultation SIP consisting of 

Metropolitan Planning Organization 

resolutions and Memorandums of 

Understanding to address interagency 

consultation and enforceability of 

certain transportation related control 

measures and mitigation measures. EPA 

is approving the Transportation 

Conformity SIP from Indiana. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20180 Filed 8–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2005–OH–0003; FRL– 

9187–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

Final Approval and Promulgation of 

State Implementation Plans; Carbon 

Monoxide and Volatile Organic 

Compounds 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Under section 110(k)(3) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is 

disapproving an Ohio regulation 

revision pertaining to volatile organic 

compound (VOC) limits for high 

performance architectural coatings 

contained in Ohio Administrative Code 

(OAC) 3745–21–09(U)(1)(h). Under 

section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, we are 

also conditionally approving a revision 

of paragraph (BBB)(1) of OAC 3745–21– 

09, based on a State commitment to 

provide for enforceability of a pertinent 

limit no later than one year from the 

date of EPA’s conditional approval. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 16, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2005–OH–0003. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Anthony 

Maietta, Environmental Protection 

Specialist, at (312) 353–8777 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony Maietta, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Control Strategies 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

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

maietta.anthony@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What Were EPA’s Proposed Actions? 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. What Actions is EPA Taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Were EPA’s Proposed Actions? 

On January 22, 2010 (75 FR 3668), 

EPA proposed a variety of actions 

regarding revisions to OAC 3745–21, 

from submittals dated October 9, 2000, 

February 6, 2001, August 3, 2001, and 

June 24, 2003. We proposed to (1) 

approve into the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) certain revisions in OAC 

3745–21 which have been adopted by 

the State; (2) disapprove a revision 

pertaining to high performance 

architectural coatings; (3) conditionally 

approve a revision of paragraph 

(BBB)(1) of OAC 3745–21–09, if the 

State gives EPA a letter that commits to 

provide for enforceability of the 1 ton 

per year limit no later than one year 

from the expected date of EPA’s 

conditional approval; (4) take no action 

on certain regulation revisions, and, (5) 

provide notice that EPA and Ohio have 

created a mechanism to incorporate into 

the Ohio SIP permits to facilities 

operating under previously issued 

alternate VOC limit and emission 

control exemptions for miscellaneous 

metal coating operations under OAC 

3745–21–09(U)(2)(f). For administrative 

convenience, in a separate rulemaking 

published June 21, 2010, at 75 FR 

34939, we approved certain submitted 

regulation revisions, took no action on 

others, and recognized various emission 

control exemptions that have been 

granted for miscellaneous metal coating 

operations under OAC 3745–21– 

09(U)(2)(f). Today’s action makes final 

our disapproval and conditional 

approval of portions of OAC rule 3745– 

21–09. You can learn more information 

about the rule revisions submitted and 

our evaluation of them in our proposed 

action. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 

30-day public comment period. We did 

not receive any comments on the 

proposed action. On March 1, and July 

2, 2010, Ohio EPA committed to remedy 

deficiencies in OAC 3745–21– 

09(BBB)(1). 

III. What Actions is EPA Taking? 

EPA is disapproving the coating VOC 

content limit for high performance 

architectural aluminum coatings 

contained in paragraph (U)(1)(h) of OAC 

3745–21–09 because the State has not 

demonstrated that the relaxation of the 

VOC content limit for high performance 

architectural aluminum coatings would 

not interfere with attainment of the 

ozone standard and other requirements. 

EPA is conditionally approving a 

revision to OAC 3745–21–09(BBB)(1) 

provided that the State is able to, within 

one year of our final rulemaking, further 

revise the paragraph to include test 

procedures and recordkeeping 

requirements compatible with the 

paragraph’s revised emission limit. On 

March 1, and July 2, 2010, Ohio EPA 

committed to remedy the deficiencies in 

this revision. If the State fails to correct 

this rule and confirm this correction 

within the allowed one year period, this 

conditional approval will revert to 

disapproval. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES