71444 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

7.0 Optional Endorsement Lines 

(OELs) 

7.1 OEL Use 

7.1.1. Basic Standards 

[Revise the first sentence of the 

introductory text to read as follows.] 

An optional endorsement line (OEL) 

may be used to label bundles instead of 

applying pressure-sensitive bundle 

labels or facing slips to the top piece of 

bundles except each mailpiece in a FSS 

bundle must bear an optional 

endorsement line in human-readable 

text, including the correct ZIP code 

listed in Column B of L006, as described 

in Exhibit 7.1.1. * * * 

Exhibit 7.1.1 OEL Formats 

[Revise Exhibit 7.1.1 to read as 

follows.] 

Sortation level OEL example 

Firm—BPM machinable parcels ................................................................................................. * * * * * * FIRM 12345. 

Firm—Periodicals ........................................................................................................................ * * * * * * FIRM 12345. 

Origin Mixed ADC—Periodicals (3-digit ZIP Code prefix) .......................................................... * * * * * * ORIGIN MIXED ADC 117. 

Carrier Route—Periodicals basic ............................................................................................... * * * * * * CAR–RT LOT**C–001 

* * * * * * CR LOT 1234A**C–001. 

Carrier Route—basic FSS .......................................................................................................... * * * * * * SCH 5-DIGIT 2345 FSSC. 

Carrier Route—Periodicals high density .................................................................................... * * * * * * CAR–RT WSH**C–001. 

Carrier Route—High density FSS .............................................................................................. * * * * * * SCH 5-DIGIT 12345 FSSB. 

Carrier Route—Periodicals saturation ........................................................................................ * * * * * * CAR–RT WSS**C–001. 

Carrier Route—Periodicals Saturation FSS ............................................................................... * * * * * * SCH 5-DIGIT 12345 FSSH. 

ECR—Standard Mail basic ......................................................................................................... * * * * * * ECRLOT**C–001 

* * * * * * ECRLOT 1234A**C–001. 

ECR—Standard Mail high density or high density plus ............................................................. * * * * * * ECRWSH**C–001. 

ECR—High Density Plus FSS .................................................................................................... * * * * * * SCH 5-DIGIT 12345 FSSA. 

ECR—Standard Mail saturation ................................................................................................. * * * * * * ECRWSS**C–001. 

Carrier Route—Bound Printed Matter ........................................................................................ * * * * * * CAR–RT SORT**C–001. 

Carrier Route FSS—Bound Printed Matter ................................................................................ * * * * * * SCH 5-DIGIT 12345 FSSC. 

5-Digit .......................................................................................................................................... * * * * * * 5-DIGIT 12345. 

5-Digit (Nonautomation FSS flats) .............................................................................................. * * * * * * SCH 5-DIGIT 12345 FSSE. 

5-Digit Scheme (Automation flats) .............................................................................................. * * * * * * SCH 5-DIGIT 12345. 

5-Digit Scheme (Automation FSS flats) ..................................................................................... * * * * * * SCH 5-DIGIT 12345 FSSD. 

3-Digit .......................................................................................................................................... * * * * * * 3-DIGIT 771. 

3-Digit (Nonautomation FSS flats) .............................................................................................. * * * * * * SCH 5-DIGIT 12345 FSSG. 

3-Digit Scheme (Automation flats) .............................................................................................. * * * * * * SCH 3-DIGIT 006. 

3-Digit Scheme (Automation FSS flats) ..................................................................................... * * * * * * SCH 5-Digit 12345 FSSF. 

ADC (3-digit ZIP Code prefix) .................................................................................................... * * * * * * ALL FOR ADC 105. 

ADC (5-digit ZIP Code) .............................................................................................................. * * * * * * ALL FOR ADC 90197. 

Mixed ADC (3-digit ZIP Code prefix) .......................................................................................... * * * * * * MIXED ADC 640. 

Mixed ADC (5-digit ZIP Code) .................................................................................................... * * * * * * MIXED ADC 60821. 

Optional tray level piece ID for automation letters: 

AADC (3-digit ZIP Code prefix) ........................................................................................... * * * * * * ALL FOR AADC 050. 

AADC (5-digit ZIP Code) ..................................................................................................... * * * * * * ALL FOR AADC 07099. 

Mixed AADC (3-digit ZIP Code prefix) ................................................................................ * * * * * * MIXED AADC 870. 

Mixed AADC (5-digit ZIP Code) .......................................................................................... * * * * * * MIXED AADC 75197. 

Additional required human-readable text for use with combined mailings of Standard Mail and Periodical flats: 

5-Digit Scheme (and other sortation levels as appropriate) ............................................... * * * * * * SCH 5-DIGIT 12345 MIX COMAIL. 

5-Digit Scheme (Automation FSS flats) .............................................................................. * * * * * * SCH 5-DIGIT 12345 FSSD COMAIL. 

5-Digit (Nonautomation FSS flats) ...................................................................................... * * * * * * SCH 5-DIGIT 12345 FSSE COMAIL. 

3-Digit (Automation FSS flats) ............................................................................................. * * * * * * SCH 5-DIGIT 12345 FSSF COMAIL. 

3-Digit (Nonautomation FSS flats) ...................................................................................... * * * * * * SCH 5-DIGIT 12345 FSSG COMAIL. 

Carrier Route high density plus (FSS flats) ........................................................................ * * * * * * SCH 5-DIGIT 12345 FSSA COMAIL. 

Carrier Route high density (FSS flats) ................................................................................ * * * * * * SCH 5-DIGIT 12345 FSSB COMAIL. 

Carrier Route basic ............................................................................................................. * * * * * * SCH 5-DIGIT 12345 FSSC COMAIL. 

* * * * * 

7.1.8 Required OEL Use in Combined 

Mailings of Standard Mail and 

Periodicals Flats 

Mailers authorized to combine 

Standard Mail flats and Periodicals flats, 

under 705.15.0, must apply an OEL 

identifying the presort level of the 

bundle and other applicable information 

as specified in 7.1 to each mailpiece. 

The following additional standards also 

apply: 

* * * * * 

[Revise item c to read as follows.] 

c. When combined mailings of 

Standard Mail and Periodicals flats are 

prepared to FSS zones under 

705.15.1.11, each mailpiece must bear 

an optional endorsement line in humanreadable text, including the correct ZIP 

code listed in Column B of L006, as 

described in Exhibit 7.1.1. 

* * * * * 

We will publish an appropriate 

amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect 

these changes if our proposal is 

adopted. 

* * * * * 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Federal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2016–24710 Filed 10–14–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52, and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0396; FRL–9954–22– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; 

Redesignation of the Cleveland Area to 

Attainment of the 2008 Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

July 6, 2016, request from the Ohio 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 71445 

1The rule, titled ‘‘Implementation of the 2008 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: 

State Implementation Plan Requirements’’ and 

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

addresses nonattainment area SIP requirements for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including requirements 

pertaining to attainment demonstrations, reasonable 

further progress (RFP), reasonably available control 

technology (RACT), reasonably available control 

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

emission inventories, and the timing requirements 

for SIP submissions and compliance with emission 

control measures in the SIP. This rule also 

addresses the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

Continued 

Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio 

EPA) to redesignate the ClevelandAkron-Lorain, Ohio area (Cleveland 

area) to attainment of the 2008 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS or standard), because the 

request meets the statutory requirements 

for redesignation under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). The Cleveland area includes 

Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, 

Lorain, Medina, Portage, and Summit 

counties. EPA is also proposing to 

approve, as a revision to the Ohio State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), Ohio’s plan 

for maintaining the 2008 ozone standard 

through 2030 in the Cleveland area. 

Finally, EPA finds adequate and is 

proposing to approve Ohio’s 2020 and 

2030 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

(MVEBs) for the Cleveland area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 16, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2016–0396 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (e.g., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the ‘‘For Further 

Information Contact’’ section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6832, 

Liljegren.Jennifer@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing? 

II. What is the background for these actions? 

III. What are the criteria for redesignation? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Ohio’s 

redesignation request? 

A. Has the Cleveland area attained the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS? 

B. Has Ohio met all applicable 

requirements of section 110 and part D 

of the CAA for the Cleveland area, and 

does the Cleveland area have a fully 

approved SIP under section 110(k) of the 

CAA? 

1. Ohio Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements of Section 110 and Part D 

of the CAA Applicable to the Cleveland 

Area for Purposes of Redesignation 

2. The Cleveland Area Has a Fully 

Approved SIP for Purposes of 

Redesignation Under Section 110(k) of 

the CAA 

C. Are the air quality improvements in the 

Cleveland area due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions? 

1. Permanent and Enforceable Emission 

Controls Implemented 

2. Emission Reductions 

3. Meteorology 

D. Does Ohio have a fully approvable 

ozone maintenance plan for the 

Cleveland area? 

1. Attainment Inventory 

2. Has the state documented maintenance 

of the ozone standard in the Cleveland 

area? 

3. Continued Air Quality Monitoring 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

5. What is the maintenance plan for the 

Cleveland area? 

V. Has the state adopted approvable Motor 

Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs)? 

A. MVEBs 

B. What is the status of EPA’s adequacy 

determination for the proposed VOC and 

NOX MVEBs for the Cleveland area? 

C. What is a safety margin? 

VI. Proposed Actions 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What are the actions EPA is 

proposing? 

EPA is proposing to take several 

related actions. EPA is proposing to 

approve Ohio EPA’s request to change 

the legal designation of the Cleveland 

area from nonattainment to attainment 

of the 2008 ozone standard. EPA is also 

proposing to approve, as a revision to 

the Ohio SIP, the state’s maintenance 

plan (such approval being one of the 

CAA criteria for redesignation to 

attainment status) for the area. The 

maintenance plan is designed to keep 

the Cleveland area in attainment of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS through 2030. 

Finally, EPA finds adequate and is 

proposing to approve the newlyestablished 2020 and 2030 MVEBs for 

the Cleveland area. The adequacy 

comment period for the MVEBs began 

on July 22, 2016, with EPA’s posting of 

the availability of the submittal on 

EPA’s Adequacy Web site (at http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ 

transconf/adequacy.htm). The adequacy 

comment period for these MVEBs ended 

on August 22, 2016. EPA did not receive 

any adverse comments on this submittal 

during the adequacy comment period. 

In a letter dated August 23, 2016, EPA 

informed Ohio EPA that we found the 

2020 and 2030 MVEBs to be adequate 

for use in transportation conformity 

analyses. See section V. B. of this 

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

adequacy determination for the 

proposed VOC and NOX MVEBs for the 

Cleveland area?’’ for further explanation 

of this process. We find adequate, and 

are proposing to approve, the State’s 

2020 and 2030 MVEBs for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

II. What is the background for these 

actions? 

EPA has determined that ground-level 

ozone is detrimental to human health. 

On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a 

revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 

parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 

16436 (March 27, 2008). Under EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 

ozone NAAQS is attained in an area 

when the 3-year average of the annual 

4th high daily maximum 8-hour average 

ozone concentrations is equal to or less 

than 0.075 ppm when truncated after 

the thousandth decimal place at all of 

the ozone monitoring sites in the area. 

See 40 CFR 50.15 and appendix P to 40 

CFR part 50. 

Upon promulgation of a new or 

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

the CAA requires EPA to designate as 

nonattainment any areas that are 

violating the NAAQS, based on the most 

recent three years of quality-assured 

ozone monitoring data. The Cleveland 

area was designated as a marginal 

nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS on May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088) 

(effective July 20, 2012). 

In a final implementation rule for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS (SIP Requirements 

Rule),1 EPA established ozone standard 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71446 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

and the anti-backsliding requirements that apply 

when the 1997 ozone NAAQS is revoked. 

2The ozone season is defined by state in 40 CFR 

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

time periods, the ozone season for Ohio was April– 

October. Beginning in 2016, the ozone season for 

Ohio is now March–October. See, 80 FR 65292, 

65466–67 (October 26, 2015). 

attainment dates based on table 1 of 

section 181(a) of the CAA. This 

established an attainment date three 

years after the July 20, 2012, effective 

designation date for areas classified as 

marginal nonattainment for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the 

attainment date for the Cleveland area 

was July 20, 2015. On May 4, 2016 (81 

FR 26697), based on EPA’s evaluation 

and determination that the Cleveland 

area failed to attain the NAAQS by July 

20, 2015, but met the attainment date 

extension criteria of CAA section 

181(a)(5), EPA granted the Cleveland 

area a 1-year extension of the applicable 

marginal area attainment date from July 

20, 2015, to July 20, 2016. 

III. What are the criteria for 

redesignation? 

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

allows redesignation of an area to 

attainment of the NAAQS provided that: 

(1) The Administrator (EPA) determines 

that the area has attained the NAAQS; 

(2) the Administrator has fully approved 

the applicable implementation plan for 

the area under section 110(k) of the 

CAA; (3) the Administrator determines 

that the improvement in air quality is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP, 

applicable Federal air pollutant control 

regulations, and other permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions; (4) the 

Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

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

containing the area has met all 

requirements applicable to the area for 

the purposes of redesignation under 

section 110 and part D of the CAA. 

On April 16, 1992, EPA provided 

guidance on redesignations in the 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498) and 

supplemented this guidance on April 

28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has 

provided further guidance on processing 

redesignation requests in the following 

documents: 

1. ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design 

Value Calculations,’’ Memorandum from Bill 

Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division, 

June 18, 1990; 

2. ‘‘Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of 

Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment 

Areas,’’ Memorandum from G.T. Helms, 

Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 

Branch, April 30, 1992; 

3. ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,’’ 

Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, 

June 1, 1992; 

4. ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, 

Air Quality Management Division, September 

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

5. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air 

Act (CAA) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from 

John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, October 28, 1992; 

6. ‘‘Technical Support Documents (TSDs) 

for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,’’ 

Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, 

August 17, 1993; 

7. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests 

for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On 

or After November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993 (the ‘‘Shapiro 

memorandum’’); 

8. ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in 

Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone and 

CO Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum 

from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, November 30, 

1993; 

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

NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 

14, 1994 (the ‘‘Nichols memorandum’’); and 

10. ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, 

Attainment Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard,’’ Memorandum from 

John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Ohio’s 

redesignation request? 

A. Has the Cleveland area attained the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS? 

For redesignation of a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the area has 

attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA 

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

attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS if it 

meets the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as 

determined in accordance with 40 CFR 

50.15 and appendix P of part 50, based 

on three complete, consecutive calendar 

years of quality-assured air quality data 

for all monitoring sites in the area. To 

attain the NAAQS, the 3-year average of 

the annual 4th high daily maximum 8- 

hour average ozone concentrations 

(ozone design values) at each monitor 

must not exceed 0.075 ppm when 

truncated after the thousandth decimal 

place. The air quality data must be 

collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and 

recorded in EPA’s Air Quality System 

(AQS). Ambient air quality monitoring 

data for the 3-year period must also 

meet data completeness requirements. 

An ozone design value is valid if daily 

maximum 8-hour average 

concentrations are available for at least 

90% of the days within the ozone 

monitoring seasons,2 on average, for the 

3-year period, with a minimum data 

completeness of 75% during the ozone 

monitoring season of any year during 

the 3-year period. See section 2.3 of 

appendix P to 40 CFR part 50. 

On May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26697), based 

on EPA’s evaluation and determination 

that the Cleveland area failed to attain 

the NAAQS by July 20, 2015, but met 

the attainment date extension criteria of 

CAA section 181(a)(5), EPA granted the 

Cleveland area a 1-year extension of the 

applicable Marginal area attainment 

date from July 20, 2015, to July 20, 2016. 

On June 27, 2016 (81 FR 41444), in 

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

the CAA and the provisions of the SIP 

Requirements Rule (40 CFR 51.1103), 

EPA made a determination that the 

Cleveland area attained the standard by 

its July 20, 2016 attainment date based 

upon three years of complete, qualityassured and certified data for the 2013– 

2015 time period. These data are 

summarized in Table 1, below. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 71447 

3On October 27, 1992 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued 

a NOX ‘‘SIP call’’ requiring the District of Columbia 

and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX in order 

to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone 

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

Ohio developed rules governing the control of NOX

emissions from Electric Generating Units (EGUs), 

major non-EGU industrial boilers and turbines, and 

major cement kilns. EPA approved Ohio’s rules as 

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

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

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

on February 4, 2008 (73 FR 6427). 

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

THE 4TH HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR AVERAGE OZONE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE CLEVELAND AREA

County Monitor 

2013 

4th high 

(ppm) 

2014 

4th high 

(ppm) 

2015 

4th high 

(ppm) 

2013–2015 

average 

(ppm) 

Ashtabula ......................................................................... 39–007–1001 70 69 70 69 

Cuyahoga ......................................................................... 39–035–0034 69 71 67 69 

39–035–0060 57 66 63 62 

39–035–0064 64 59 66 63 

39–035–5002 65 61 72 66 

Geauga ............................................................................ 39–055–0004 65 65 73 67 

Lake ................................................................................. 39–085–0003 70 75 74 73 

39–085–0007 68 62 70 66 

Lorain ............................................................................... 39–093–0018 60 67 62 63 

Medina ............................................................................. 39–103–0004 65 64 63 64 

Portage ............................................................................. 39–133–1001 58 61 64 61 

Summit ............................................................................. 39–153–0020 60 58 65 61 

EPA will not take final action to 

approve the redesignation of this area if 

the design value of a monitoring site in 

the area exceeds the NAAQS after 

proposal but prior to final approval of 

the redesignation. Preliminary 2016 data 

indicate that this area continues to 

attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As 

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

EPA has committed to continue 

monitoring ozone in this area to verify 

maintenance of the ozone standard. 

B. Has Ohio met all applicable 

requirements of section 110 and part D 

of the CAA for the Cleveland area, and 

does the Cleveland area have a fully 

approved SIP under section 110(k) of 

the CAA? 

As criteria for redesignation of an area 

from nonattainment to attainment of a 

NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA to 

determine that the state has met all 

applicable requirements under section 

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

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

that the state has a fully approved SIP 

under section 110(k) of the CAA (see 

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

proposes to find that Ohio has a fully 

approved SIP under section 110(k) of 

the CAA. Additionally, EPA proposes to 

find that the Ohio SIP satisfies the 

criterion that it meets applicable SIP 

requirements, for purposes of 

redesignation, under section 110 and 

part D of title I of the CAA 

(requirements specific to nonattainment 

areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS). In 

making these proposed determinations, 

EPA ascertained which CAA 

requirements are applicable to the 

Cleveland area and the Ohio SIP and, if 

applicable, whether the required Ohio 

SIP elements are fully approved under 

section 110(k) and part D of the CAA. 

As discussed more fully below, SIPs 

must be fully approved only with 

respect to currently applicable 

requirements of the CAA. 

The September 4, 1992, Calcagni 

memorandum describes EPA’s 

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

the CAA. Under this interpretation, a 

state and the area it wishes to 

redesignate must meet the relevant CAA 

requirements that are due prior to the 

state’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request for the area. See 

also the Shapiro memorandum and 60 

FR 12459, 12465–66 (March 7, 1995) 

(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, 

Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS). Applicable 

requirements of the CAA that come due 

subsequent to the state’s submittal of a 

complete request remain applicable 

until a redesignation to attainment is 

approved, but are not required as a 

prerequisite to redesignation. See 

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

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

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

(redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. 

Louis area to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS). 

1. Ohio Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements of Section 110 and Part D 

of the CAA Applicable to the Cleveland 

Area for Purposes of Redesignation 

a. Section 110 General Requirements for 

Implementation Plans 

Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 

delineates the general requirements for 

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

the SIP must have been adopted by the 

state after reasonable public notice and 

hearing, and that, among other things, it 

must: (1) include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CAA; (2) 

provide for establishment and operation 

of appropriate devices, methods, 

systems and procedures necessary to 

monitor ambient air quality; (3) provide 

for implementation of a source permit 

program to regulate the modification 

and construction of stationary sources 

within the areas covered by the plan; (4) 

include provisions for the 

implementation of CAA title I part C 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and part D nonattainment New 

Source Review (NSR) permit programs; 

(5) include criteria for stationary source 

emission control measures, monitoring, 

and reporting; (6) include provisions for 

air quality modeling; and, (7) provide 

for public and local agency participation 

in planning and emission control rule 

development. 

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

requires SIPs to contain measures to 

prevent sources in a state from 

significantly contributing to air quality 

problems in another state. To 

implement this provision, EPA has 

required certain states to establish 

programs to address transport of certain 

air pollutants, e.g., Oxides of Nitrogen 

(NOX) SIP call.3 However, like many of 

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

110(a)(2)(D) SIP requirements are not 

linked with a particular area’s ozone 

designation and classification. EPA 

concludes that the SIP requirements 

linked with the area’s ozone designation 

and classification are the relevant 

measures to evaluate when reviewing a 

redesignation request for the area. The 

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


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71448 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

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

submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain 

Federal criteria and procedures for determining 

transportation conformity. Transportation 

conformity SIPs are different from SIPs requiring 

the development of Motor Vehicle Emission 

Budgets (MVEBs), such as control strategy SIPs and 

maintenance plans. 

where applicable, continue to apply to 

a state regardless of the designation of 

any one particular area within the state. 

Thus, we have determined these 

requirements are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. See 65 FR 37890 (June 

19, 2000), 68 FR 25418, 25426–27 (May 

12, 2003). 

In addition, EPA believes that other 

section 110 elements that are neither 

connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions nor linked with an area’s 

ozone attainment status are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The area will still be 

subject to these requirements after the 

area is redesignated to attainment of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. The section 110 

and part D requirements which are 

linked with a particular area’s 

designation and classification are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. This 

approach is consistent with EPA’s 

existing policy on applicability (e.g., for 

redesignations) of conformity and 

oxygenated fuels requirements, as well 

as with section 184 ozone transport 

requirements. See Reading, 

Pennsylvania proposed and final 

rulemakings, 61 FR 53174–53176 

(October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826 

(May 7, 1997); Cleveland-AkronLoraine, Ohio final rulemaking, 61 FR 

20458 (May 7, 1996); and Tampa, 

Florida final rulemaking, 60 FR 62748 

(December 7, 1995). See also the 

discussion of this issue in the 

Cincinnati, Ohio ozone redesignation 

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

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ozone 

redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 

2001). 

We have reviewed Ohio’s SIP and 

have concluded that it meets the general 

SIP requirements under section 110 of 

the CAA, to the extent those 

requirements are applicable for 

purposes of redesignation. On October 

16, 2014 (79 FR 62019), EPA approved 

elements of the SIP submitted by Ohio 

to meet the requirements of section 110 

for the 2008 ozone standard. The 

requirements of section 110(a)(2), 

however, are statewide requirements 

that are not linked to the 2008 ozone 

standard nonattainment status of the 

Cleveland area. Therefore, EPA 

concludes that these infrastructure 

requirements are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of review of 

the state’s 2008 ozone standard 

redesignation request. 

b. Part D Requirements 

Section 172(c) of the CAA sets forth 

the basic requirements of air quality 

plans for states with nonattainment 

areas that are required to submit them 

pursuant to section 172(b). Subpart 2 of 

part D, which includes section 182 of 

the CAA, establishes specific 

requirements for ozone nonattainment 

areas depending on the areas’ 

nonattainment classifications. 

The Cleveland area was classified as 

marginal nonattainment under subpart 2 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As such, 

the area is subject to the subpart 1 

requirements contained in section 

172(c) and section 176 and the subpart 

2 requirements contained in section 

182(a) (marginal nonattainment area 

requirements). A thorough discussion of 

the requirements contained in section 

172(c) and 182 can be found in the 

General Preamble for Implementation of 

Title I (57 FR 13498). 

i. Part D Subpart 1 Section 172 

Requirements 

As provided in subpart 2, for marginal 

ozone nonattainment areas such as the 

Cleveland area, the specific 

requirements of section 182(a) apply in 

lieu of the attainment planning 

requirements that would otherwise 

apply under section 172(c), including 

the attainment demonstration and 

reasonably available control measures 

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

reasonable further progress (RFP) under 

section 172(c)(2), and contingency 

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

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

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission 

and approval of a comprehensive, 

accurate and current inventory of actual 

emissions. This requirement is 

superseded by the inventory 

requirement in section 182(a)(1) 

discussed below. 

Section 172(c)(4) requires the 

identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources in an area, 

and section 172(c)(5) requires source 

permits for the construction and 

operation of new and modified major 

stationary sources anywhere in the 

nonattainment area. EPA approved 

Ohio’s NSR program on January 10, 

2003 (68 FR 1366) and February 25, 

2010 (75 FR 8496). However, EPA has 

determined that, since PSD NSR 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation, areas being redesignated 

need not comply with the requirement 

that a nonattainment NSR program be 

approved prior to redesignation, 

provided that the area demonstrates 

maintenance of the NAAQS without 

part D nonattainment NSR. A more 

detailed rationale for this determination 

is described in the Nichols 

memorandum. Ohio has demonstrated 

that the Cleveland area will be able to 

maintain the standard without part D 

nonattainment NSR in effect; therefore, 

EPA concludes that the state need not 

have a fully approved part D 

nonattainment NSR program prior to 

approval of the redesignation request. 

See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan 

(60 FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). Ohio’s PSD NSR program will 

become effective in the Cleveland area 

upon redesignation to attainment. 

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

contain control measures necessary to 

provide for attainment of the NAAQS. 

Because attainment has been reached, 

no additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment. 

Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to 

meet the applicable provisions of 

section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we 

have determined the Ohio SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) for 

purposes of redesignation. 

ii. Part A Section 176 Conformity 

Requirements 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that federally 

supported or funded projects conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIP. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects that are developed, funded or 

approved under title 23 of the United 

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

Transit Act (transportation conformity) 

as well as to all other federally 

supported or funded projects (general 

conformity). State transportation 

conformity SIP revisions must be 

consistent with Federal conformity 

regulations relating to consultation, 

enforcement and enforceability that EPA 

promulgated pursuant to its authority 

under the CAA. 

EPA interprets the conformity SIP 

requirements 4 as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating a redesignation 

request under section 107(d) because 

state conformity rules are still required 

after redesignation and Federal 

conformity rules apply where state 

conformity rules have not been 

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


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 71449 

426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding this 

interpretation); see also 60 FR 62748 

(December 7, 1995) (redesignation of 

Tampa, Florida). Nonetheless, Ohio has 

an approved conformity SIP for the 

Cleveland area. See 80 FR 11133 (March 

2, 2015). 

iii. Part D Subpart 2 Section 182(a) 

Requirements 

Section 182(a)(1) requires states to 

submit a comprehensive, accurate, and 

current inventory of actual emissions 

from sources of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and NOX emitted 

within the boundaries of the ozone 

nonattainment area. Ohio submitted a 

2008 base year emissions inventory for 

the Cleveland area on July 18, 2014. 

EPA approved this emissions inventory 

as a revision to the Ohio SIP on March 

10, 2016 (81 FR 12591). 

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

with ozone nonattainment areas that 

were designated prior to the enactment 

of the 1990 CAA amendments were 

required to submit, within six months of 

classification, all rules and corrections 

to existing VOC reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) rules that 

were required under section 172(b)(3) 

prior to the 1990 CAA amendments. The 

Cleveland area is not subject to the 

section 182(a)(2) RACT ‘‘fix up’’ 

requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

because it was designated as 

nonattainment for this standard after the 

enactment of the 1990 CAA 

amendments and because Ohio 

complied with this requirement for the 

Cleveland area under the prior 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS. See 59 FR 23796 (May 

9, 1994) and 60 FR 15235 (March 23, 

1995). 

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

state with a marginal ozone 

nonattainment area that implemented or 

was required to implement a vehicle 

inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

program prior to the 1990 CAA 

amendments to submit a SIP revision for 

an I/M program no less stringent than 

that required prior to the 1990 CAA 

amendments or already in the SIP at the 

time of the CAA amendments, 

whichever is more stringent. For the 

purposes of the 2008 ozone standard 

and the consideration of Ohio’s 

redesignation request for this standard, 

the Cleveland area is not subject to the 

section 182(a)(2)(B) requirement 

because the Cleveland area was 

designated as nonattainment for the 

2008 ozone standard after the enactment 

of the 1990 CAA amendments. 

However, the Cleveland area established 

an I/M program under the 1-hour ozone 

standard. EPA approved Ohio’s 

enhanced I/M program (E-Check), on 

April 4, 1995 (60 FR 16989) and January 

6, 1997 (62 FR 646). The E-Check 

program continues to be implemented 

in the Cleveland area. 

Regarding the source permitting and 

offset requirements of section 

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

approved Ohio’s NSR program on 

January 22, 2003 (68 FR 2909) and 

February 25, 2010 (75 FR 8496). 

However, as discussed above, Ohio has 

demonstrated that the Cleveland area 

will be able to maintain the standard 

without part D nonattainment NSR in 

effect; therefore, EPA concludes that the 

state need not have a fully approved 

part D nonattainment NSR program 

prior to approval of the redesignation 

request. The state’s PSD NSR program 

will become effective in the Cleveland 

area upon redesignation to attainment. 

Section 182(a)(3) requires states to 

submit periodic emission inventories 

and a revision to the SIP to require the 

owners or operators of stationary 

sources to annually submit emission 

statements documenting actual VOC 

and NOX emissions. As discussed below 

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

Ohio will continue to update its 

emissions inventory at least once every 

three years. With regard to stationary 

source emission statements, EPA 

approved Ohio’s emission statement 

rule on September 27, 2007 (72 FR 

54844). On July 18, 2014, Ohio certified 

that this approved SIP regulation 

remains in place and remains 

enforceable for the 2008 ozone standard. 

EPA approved Ohio’s certification on 

March 10, 2016 (81 FR 12591). 

The Cleveland area has satisfied all 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation under section 110 and 

part D of title I of the CAA. 

2. The Cleveland Area Has a Fully 

Approved SIP for Purposes of 

Redesignation Under Section 110(k) of 

the CAA 

Ohio has adopted and submitted and 

EPA has approved at various times, 

provisions addressing the various SIP 

elements applicable for the ozone 

NAAQS. As discussed above, EPA has 

fully approved the Ohio SIP for the 

Cleveland area under section 110(k) for 

all requirements applicable for purposes 

of redesignation under the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. EPA may rely on prior SIP 

approvals in approving a redesignation 

request (see the Calcagni memorandum 

at page 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania 

Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 

984, 989–990 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. 

EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), plus 

any additional measures it may approve 

in conjunction with a redesignation 

action (see 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) 

and citations therein). 

C. Are the air quality improvements in 

the Cleveland area due to permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions? 

To support the redesignation of an 

area from nonattainment to attainment, 

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

requires EPA to determine that the air 

quality improvement in the area is due 

to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

the implementation of the SIP and 

applicable Federal air pollution control 

regulations and other permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions. EPA 

has determined that Ohio has 

demonstrated that that the observed 

ozone air quality improvement in the 

Cleveland area is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in VOC and NOX

emissions resulting from state measures 

adopted into the SIP and Federal 

measures. 

In making this demonstration, the 

state has calculated the change in 

emissions between 2011 and 2014. The 

reduction in emissions and the 

corresponding improvement in air 

quality over this time period can be 

attributed to a number of regulatory 

control measures that the Cleveland area 

and upwind areas have implemented in 

recent years. In addition, Ohio EPA 

provided an analysis to demonstrate the 

improvement in air quality was not due 

to unusually favorable meteorology. 

Based on the information summarized 

below, Ohio has adequately 

demonstrated that the improvement in 

air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions. 

1. Permanent and Enforceable Emission 

Controls Implemented 

a. Regional NOX Controls 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)/Cross 

State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). CAIR 

created regional cap-and-trade programs 

to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX

emissions in 27 eastern states, including 

Ohio, that contributed to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance of the 

1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. See 

70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). EPA 

approved Ohio’s CAIR regulations into 

the Ohio SIP on February 1, 2008 (73 FR 

6034), and September 25, 2009 (74 FR 

48857). In 2008, the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated 

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

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

remanded the rule to EPA without 

vacatur to preserve the environmental 

benefits provided by CAIR, North 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71450 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

5EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 

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

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

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

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

remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to 

replace CAIR and thus to address the 

interstate transport of emissions 

contributing to nonattainment and 

interfering with maintenance of the two 

air quality standards covered by CAIR as 

well as the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR 

requires substantial reductions of SO2

and NOX emissions from electric 

generating units (EGUs) in 28 states in 

the Eastern United States. 

The D.C. Circuit’s initial vacatur of 

CSAPR 5 was reversed by the United 

States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, 

and the case was remanded to the D.C. 

Circuit to resolve remaining issues in 

accordance with the high court’s ruling. 

EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 

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

the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most 

respects, but invalidated without 

vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as 

to a number of states. EME Homer City 

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

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

include the Phase 2 NOX ozone season 

emissions budgets for Ohio. This 

litigation ultimately delayed 

implementation of CSAPR for three 

years, from January 1, 2012, when 

CSAPR’s cap-and-trade programs were 

originally scheduled to replace the CAIR 

cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 

2015. Thus, while the rule’s Phase 2 

budgets were originally promulgated to 

begin on January 1, 2014, they are now 

scheduled to begin on January 1, 2017. 

CSAPR will continue to operate under 

the existing emissions budgets until 

EPA addresses the D.C. Circuit’s 

remand. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

redesignation of the Cleveland area 

without relying on the Ohio CSAPR 

Phase 2 ozone season NOX emissions 

budget as an emission control measure 

having led to attainment of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS or contributing to 

maintenance of that standard. In so 

doing, we are proposing to determine 

that the D.C. Circuit’s invalidation of the 

Ohio CSAPR Phase 2 ozone season NOX

emissions budget does not bar today’s 

proposed redesignation. 

The improvement in ozone air quality 

in the Cleveland area from 2011 (a year 

when the design value for the area was 

above the NAAQS) to 2014 (a year when 

the design value was below the NAAQS) 

with respect to EGUs includes changes 

at several facilities which resulted in 

NOX emissions reductions. The 

Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., 

Eastlake Plant in Lake County 

permanently shut down in April of 

2015. Prior to the shutdown, EGU NOX

emissions had dropped from 27.27 tons 

per summer day (TPSD) to 5.48 TPSD 

(2011 to 2014). The First Energy 

Generation, LLC Lake Shore facility in 

Cuyahoga County permanently shut 

down in April of 2015. Prior to the 

shutdown, EGU NOX emissions had 

dropped in Cuyahoga County from 2.83 

TPSD to 1.10 TPSD (2011 to 2014). The 

First Energy Generation, LLC Ashtabula 

Plant in Ashtabula County shut down 

coal fired boilers in April of 2015 and 

December of 2015. Prior to the 

shutdown, EGU NOX emissions in 

Ashtabula County had dropped from 

4.21 TPSD to 1.26 TPSD (2011 to 2014). 

Even greater reductions than predicted 

will be achieved in these areas due to 

the shutdown of these facilities. 

b. Federal Emission Control Measures 

Reductions in VOC and NOX

emissions have occurred statewide and 

in upwind areas as a result of Federal 

emission control measures, with 

additional emission reductions expected 

to occur in the future. Federal emission 

control measures include the following. 

Tier 2 Emission Standards for 

Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards. 

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

promulgated Tier 2 motor vehicle 

emission standards and gasoline sulfur 

control requirements. These emission 

control requirements result in lower 

VOC and NOX emissions from new cars 

and light duty trucks, including sport 

utility vehicles. With respect to fuels, 

this rule required refiners and importers 

of gasoline to meet lower standards for 

sulfur in gasoline, which were phased 

in between 2004 and 2006. By 2006, 

refiners were required to meet a 30 ppm 

average sulfur level, with a maximum 

cap of 80 ppm. This reduction in fuel 

sulfur content ensures the effectiveness 

of low emission-control technologies. 

The Tier 2 tailpipe standards 

established in this rule were phased in 

for new vehicles between 2004 and 

2009. EPA estimates that, when fully 

implemented, this rule will cut 

emissions from light-duty vehicles and 

light-duty trucks by approximately 76 

and 28% for NOX and VOC, 

respectively. NOX and VOC reductions 

from medium-duty passenger vehicles 

included as part of the Tier 2 vehicle 

program are estimated to be 

approximately 37,000 and 9,500 tons 

per year, respectively, when fully 

implemented. In addition, EPA 

estimates that beginning in 2007, a 

reduction of 30,000 tons per year of 

NOX will result from the benefits of 

sulfur control on heavy-duty gasoline 

vehicles. Some of these emission 

reductions occurred by the attainment 

years and additional emission 

reductions will occur throughout the 

maintenance period, as older vehicles 

are replaced with newer, compliant 

model years. 

Tier 3 Emission Standards for 

Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards. 

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

promulgated Tier 3 motor vehicle 

emission and fuel standards to reduce 

both tailpipe and evaporative emissions 

and to further reduce the sulfur content 

in fuels. The rule will be phased in 

between 2017 and 2025. Tier 3 sets new 

tailpipe standards for the sum of VOC 

and NOX and for particulate matter. The 

VOC and NOX tailpipe standards for 

light-duty vehicles represent 

approximately an 80% reduction from 

today’s fleet average and a 70% 

reduction in per-vehicle PM standards. 

Heavy-duty tailpipe standards represent 

about a 60% reduction in both fleet 

average VOC and NOX and per-vehicle 

PM standards. The evaporative 

emissions requirements in the rule will 

result in approximately a 50% reduction 

from current standards and apply to all 

light-duty and on-road gasolinepowered heavy-duty vehicles. Finally, 

the rule lowers the sulfur content of 

gasoline to an annual average of 10 ppm 

by January 2017. While these reductions 

did not aid the area in attaining the 

standard, emission reductions will 

occur during the maintenance period. 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rules. In 

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

includes standards limiting the sulfur 

content of diesel fuel. Emissions 

standards for NOX, VOC, and PM were 

phased in between model years 2007 

and 2010. In addition, the rule reduced 

the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 

15 ppm by 2007, leading to additional 

reductions in combustion NOX and VOC 

emissions. EPA has estimated future 

year emission reductions due to 

implementation of this rule. Nationally, 

EPA estimated that 2015 NOX and VOC 

emissions would decrease by 1,260,000 

tons and 54,000 tons, respectively. In 

2030 EPA estimated that NOX and VOC 

emissions will decrease by 2,570,000 

tons and 115,000 tons, respectively. As 

projected by these estimates and 

demonstrated in the on-road emission 

modeling for the Cleveland area, some 

of these emission reductions occurred 

by the attainment years and additional 

emission reductions will occur 

throughout the maintenance period as 

older vehicles are replaced with newer, 

compliant model years. 

Non-road Diesel Rule. On June 29, 

2004 (69 FR 38958), EPA issued a rule 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 71451 

adopting emissions standards for nonroad diesel engines and sulfur 

reductions in non-road diesel fuel. This 

rule applies to diesel engines used 

primarily in construction, agricultural, 

and industrial applications. Emission 

standards are phased in for 2008 

through 2015 model years based on 

engine size. The SO2 limits for non-road 

diesel fuels were phased in from 2007 

through 2012. EPA estimates that when 

fully implemented, compliance with 

this rule will cut NOX emissions from 

these non-road diesel engines by 

approximately 90%. Some of these 

emission reductions occurred by the 

attainment years and additional 

emission reductions will occur 

throughout the maintenance period. 

Non-road Spark-Ignition Engines and 

Recreational Engine Standards. On 

November 8, 2002 (67 FR 68242), EPA 

adopted emission standards for large 

spark-ignition engines such as those 

used in forklifts and airport groundservice equipment; recreational vehicles 

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

recreational marine diesel engines. 

These emission standards are phased in 

from model year 2004 through 2012. 

When fully implemented, EPA estimates 

an overall 72% reduction in VOC 

emissions from these engines and an 

80% reduction in NOX emissions. Some 

of these emission reductions occurred 

by the attainment years and additional 

emission reductions will occur 

throughout the maintenance period. 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines. On March 3, 2010 (75 FR 9648) 

with amendments finalized on January 

14, 2013 (78 FR 6674), EPA issued a rule 

to reduce hazardous air pollutants from 

existing diesel powered stationary 

reciprocating internal combustion 

engines, also known as compression 

ignition engines. EPA estimates that, as 

a result of this rule, NOX and VOC 

emissions from these engines will be 

reduced by approximately 9,600 and 

36,000 tons per year, respectively. 

Category 3 Marine Diesel Engine 

Standards. On April 30, 2010 (75 FR 

22896) EPA issued emission standards 

for marine compression-ignition engines 

at or above 30 liters per cylinder. Tier 

2 emission standards apply beginning in 

2011, and are expected to result in a 15 

to 25% reduction in NOX emissions 

from these engines. Final Tier 3 

emission standards apply beginning in 

2016 and are expected to result in 

approximately an 80% reduction in 

NOX from these engines. Some of these 

emission reductions occurred by the 

attainment years and additional 

emission reductions will occur 

throughout the maintenance period. 

Oil and Natural Gas Industry 

Standards. On August 16, 2012 (77 FR 

49490) EPA finalized several rules that 

apply to the oil and natural gas sector. 

These rules set standards for natural gas 

wells that are hydraulically fractured 

along with several other sources in the 

oil and natural gas sector. EPA estimates 

that, as a result of these rules, VOC 

emissions will be reduced in this source 

sector by 190,000 to 290,000 tons 

annually. 

2. Emission Reductions 

Ohio is using a 2011 inventory as the 

nonattainment base year. Area, non-road 

mobile, airport related emissions (AIR), 

and point source emissions (EGUs and 

non-EGUs) were collected from the 

Ozone NAAQS Implementation 

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

this represents actual data Ohio 

reported to EPA for the 2011 National 

Emissions inventory (NEI). Because 

emissions from state inventory 

databases, the NEI, and the Ozone 

NAAQS Emissions Modeling platform 

are annual totals, tons per summer day 

were derived according to EPA’s April 

29, 2002 guidance document entitled 

‘‘Temporal Allocation of Annual 

Emissions Using EMCH Temporal 

Profiles’’ using the temporal allocation 

references accompanying the 2011v6.1 

modeling inventory files. On-road 

mobile source emissions were 

developed in conjunction with the Ohio 

EPA, the Ohio Department of 

Transportation, the Akron Metropolitan 

Area Transportation Study (AMATS), 

and the Northeast Ohio Areawide 

Coordinating Agency (NOACA) and 

were calculated from emission factors 

produced by EPA’s Motor Vehicle 

Emission Simulator (MOVES) model 

and data extracted from the region’s 

travel-demand model. 

For the attainment inventory, Ohio is 

using 2014, one of the years the 

Cleveland area monitored attainment of 

the 2008 ozone standard. Because the 

2014 NEI inventory was not available at 

the time Ohio EPA was compiling the 

redesignation request, the state was 

unable to use the 2014 NEI inventory 

directly. For area, non-road mobile, and 

AIR, 2014 emissions were derived by 

interpolating between 2011 and 2018 

Ozone NAAQS Emissions Modeling 

platform inventories. The point source 

sector for the 2014 inventory was 

developed using actual 2014 point 

source emissions reported to the state 

database, which serve as the basis for 

the point source emissions reported to 

EPA for the NEI. Summer day 

inventories were derived for these 

sectors using the methodology described 

above. Finally, on-road mobile source 

emissions were developed using the 

same methodology described above for 

the 2011 inventory. 

Using the inventories described 

above, Ohio’s submittal documents 

changes in VOC and NOX emissions 

from 2011 to 2014 for the Cleveland 

area. Emissions data are shown in 

Tables 2 through 6. 

TABLE 2—CLEVELAND AREA NOX EMISSIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT YEAR 2011 (TPSD) 

County Point AIR Non-road Area On-road Total 

Ashtabula ................................................. 4.95 0.00 2.89 4.02 6.35 18.21 

Cuyahoga ................................................. 10.45 1.67 18.83 13.78 50.73 95.46 

Geauga .................................................... 0.02 0.00 1.66 0.87 7.46 10.01 

Lake ......................................................... 29.21 0.01 4.83 4.25 11.97 50.27 

Lorain ....................................................... 14.57 0.01 6.17 5.04 14.11 39.90 

Medina ..................................................... 0.20 0.02 2.95 1.98 14.59 19.74 

Portage ..................................................... 0.28 0.00 2.66 3.11 9.96 16.01 

Summit ..................................................... 1.59 0.33 6.30 5.34 29.19 42.75 

Area Totals ....................................... 61.27 2.04 46.29 38.39 144.36 292.35 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71452 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—CLEVELAND AREA VOC EMISSIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT YEAR 2011 (TPSD) 

County Point AIR Non-road Area On-road Total 

Ashtabula ................................................. 7.10 0.00 7.35 3.81 2.88 21.14 

Cuyahoga ................................................. 2.81 0.41 24.86 33.36 27.04 88.48 

Geauga .................................................... 0.04 0.00 3.34 4.14 4.76 12.28 

Lake ......................................................... 1.05 0.01 8.22 6.41 5.94 21.63 

Lorain ....................................................... 2.60 0.02 8.96 7.54 7.80 26.92 

Medina ..................................................... 0.64 0.04 3.60 5.23 5.41 14.92 

Portage ..................................................... 0.91 0.00 4.90 5.92 4.48 16.21 

Summit ..................................................... 1.22 0.09 7.33 14.44 13.61 36.69 

Area Totals ....................................... 16.37 0.57 68.56 80.85 71.92 238.27 

TABLE 4—CLEVELAND AREA NOX EMISSIONS FOR ATTAINMENT YEAR 2014 (TPSD) 

County Point AIR Non-road Area On-road Total 

Ashtabula ................................................. 2.00 0.00 5.95 3.82 4.22 15.99 

Cuyahoga ................................................. 8.50 1.80 21.03 13.60 31.72 76.65 

Geauga .................................................... 0.02 0.00 2.89 0.90 3.73 7.54 

Lake ......................................................... 7.29 0.01 6.66 4.12 8.05 26.13 

Lorain ....................................................... 12.14 0.01 7.40 4.83 10.29 34.67 

Medina ..................................................... 0.21 0.02 3.07 1.93 10.33 15.56 

Portage ..................................................... 0.32 0.00 4.14 2.98 6.77 14.21 

Summit ..................................................... 1.33 0.36 6.25 5.28 19.45 32.67 

Area Totals ....................................... 31.81 2.20 57.39 37.01 94.56 222.97 

TABLE 5—CLEVELAND AREA VOC EMISSIONS FOR ATTAINMENT YEAR 2014 (TPSD) 

County Point AIR Non-road Area On-road Total 

Ashtabula ................................................. 6.69 0.00 2.51 3.75 2.09 15.04 

Cuyahoga ................................................. 2.74 0.43 15.42 32.55 17.84 68.98 

Geauga .................................................... 0.08 0.00 1.32 4.05 2.03 7.48 

Lake ......................................................... 1.06 0.01 4.14 6.30 4.30 15.81 

Lorain ....................................................... 2.05 0.02 5.13 7.37 5.69 20.26 

Medina ..................................................... 0.52 0.04 2.33 5.14 3.95 11.98 

Portage ..................................................... 1.12 0.00 2.12 5.82 3.38 12.44 

Summit ..................................................... 1.04 0.10 4.90 14.19 10.07 30.30 

Area Totals ....................................... 15.30 0.60 37.87 79.17 49.35 182.29 

TABLE 6—CHANGE IN NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS IN THE CLEVELAND AREA BETWEEN 2011 AND 2014 (TPSD) 

NOX VOC 

2011 2014 Net change 

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

Point ......................................................... 61.27 31.81 ¥29.46 16.37 15.30 ¥1.07 

AIR ........................................................... 2.04 2.20 0.16 0.57 0.60 0.03 

Non-road .................................................. 46.29 57.39 11.10 68.56 37.87 ¥30.69 

Area .......................................................... 38.39 37.01 ¥1.38 80.85 79.17 ¥1.68 

On-road .................................................... 144.36 94.56 ¥49.80 71.92 49.35 ¥22.57 

Total .................................................. 292.35 222.97 ¥69.38 238.27 182.29 ¥55.98 

As shown in Table 6, the Cleveland 

area reduced NOX and VOC emissions 

by 69.38 TPSD and 55.98 TPSD, 

respectively, between 2011 and 2014. 

3. Meteorology 

Ohio EPA performed an analysis to 

further support Ohio’s demonstration 

that the improvement in air quality 

between the year violations occurred 

and the year attainment was achieved is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions and not unusually 

favorable meteorology. Ohio EPA 

analyzed the maximum 4th high 8-hour 

average ozone values for May, June, 

July, August, and September for years 

2000 to 2015. First, the maximum 8- 

hour average ozone concentration at 

each monitor in the Cleveland area was 

compared to the number of days where 

the maximum temperature was greater 

than or equal to 80 °F. While there is a 

clear trend in decreasing ozone 

concentrations at all monitors, there is 

no such trend in the temperature data. 

Ohio EPA also examined the 

relationship between the average 

summer temperature for each year of the 

2000–2015 period and the 4th 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 71453 

maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration. While there is some 

correlation between average summer 

temperatures and ozone concentrations, 

this correlation does not exist over the 

study period. The linear regression lines 

for each data set demonstrate that the 

average summer temperatures have 

increased, while ozone concentrations 

have decreased. Because the correlation 

between temperature and ozone 

formation is well established, these data 

suggest that reductions in precursors are 

responsible for the reductions in ozone 

concentrations in the Cleveland area 

and not unusually favorable summer 

temperatures. 

Finally, Ohio EPA analyzed the 

relationship between average 

summertime relative humidity and 

average 4th maximum 8-hour average 

ozone concentrations. The data did not 

show a correlation between relative 

humidity and ozone concentrations. 

Ohio EPA’s analyses of meteorological 

variables associated with ozone 

formation further support Ohio’s 

demonstration that the improvement in 

air quality in the Cleveland area 

between the year violations occurred 

and the year attainment was achieved is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions and not on 

unusually favorable meteorology. 

D. Does Ohio have a fully approvable 

ozone maintenance plan for the 

Cleveland area? 

As one of the criteria for redesignation 

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

the CAA requires EPA to determine that 

the area has a fully approved 

maintenance plan pursuant to section 

175A of the CAA. Section 175A of the 

CAA sets forth the elements of a 

maintenance plan for areas seeking 

redesignation from nonattainment to 

attainment. Under section 175A, the 

maintenance plan must demonstrate 

continued attainment of the NAAQS for 

at least 10 years after the Administrator 

approves a redesignation to attainment. 

Eight years after the redesignation, the 

state must submit a revised maintenance 

plan which demonstrates that 

attainment of the NAAQS will continue 

for an additional 10 years beyond the 

initial 10 year maintenance period. To 

address the possibility of future NAAQS 

violations, the maintenance plan must 

contain contingency measures, as EPA 

deems necessary, to assure prompt 

correction of the future NAAQS 

violation. 

The Calcagni memorandum provides 

further guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan, explaining that a 

maintenance plan should address five 

elements: (1) An attainment emission 

inventory; (2) a maintenance 

demonstration; (3) a commitment for 

continued air quality monitoring; (4) a 

process for verification of continued 

attainment; and (5) a contingency plan. 

In conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the Cleveland area to 

attainment for the 2008 ozone standard, 

Ohio submitted a SIP revision to 

provide for the maintenance of the 2008 

ozone standard through 2030, more than 

10 years after the expected effective date 

of the redesignation to attainment. As 

discussed more fully below, EPA 

proposes to find that Ohio’s ozone 

maintenance plan includes the 

necessary components, and EPA is 

proposing to approve the maintenance 

plan as a revision of the Ohio SIP. 

1. Attainment Inventory 

EPA has determined that the 

Cleveland area attained the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS based on monitoring data for 

the period of 2013–2015 (81 FR 41444). 

Ohio selected 2014 as the attainment 

emissions inventory year to establish 

attainment emission levels for VOC and 

NOX. The attainment emissions 

inventory identifies the levels of 

emissions in the Cleveland area that are 

sufficient to attain the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. The derivation of the 

attainment year emissions was 

discussed above in section IV.C.2. of 

this proposed rule. The attainment level 

emissions, by source category, are 

summarized in tables 4 and 5 above. 

2. Has the state documented 

maintenance of the ozone standard in 

the Cleveland area? 

Ohio has demonstrated maintenance 

of the 2008 ozone standard through 

2030 by assuring that current and future 

emissions of VOC and NOX for the 

Cleveland area remain at or below 

attainment year emission levels. A 

maintenance demonstration need not be 

based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 

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

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

also 66 FR 53094, 53099–53100 

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

25432 (May 12, 2003). 

Ohio is using emissions inventories 

for the years 2020 and 2030 to 

demonstrate maintenance. 2030 is more 

than 10 years after the expected 

effective date of the redesignation to 

attainment and 2020 was selected to 

demonstrate that emissions are not 

expected to spike in the interim 

between the attainment year and the 

final maintenance year. The emissions 

inventories were developed as described 

below. 

To develop the 2020 and 2030 

inventories, the state collected data from 

the Ozone NAAQS Emissions Modeling 

platform (2011v6.1) inventories for 

years 2011, 2018 and 2025. 2020 

emissions for area, non-road mobile, 

AIR, and point source sectors were 

derived by interpolating between 2018 

and 2025. 2030 emissions for area, nonroad mobile, AIR, and point source 

sectors were derived using the TREND 

function in Excel. If the trend function 

resulted in a negative value the 

emissions were assumed not to change. 

Summer day inventories were derived 

for these sectors using the methodology 

described in section IV.C.2. above. 

Finally, on-road mobile source 

emissions were developed using the 

same methodology described in section 

IV.C.2. above for the 2011 inventory. 

Emissions data are shown in Tables 7 

through 11 below. 

TABLE 7—CLEVELAND AREA PROJECTED NOX EMISSIONS FOR INTERIM MAINTENANCE YEAR 2020 (TPSD) 

County Point AIR Non-road Area On-road Total 

Ashtabula ................................................. 1.03 0.00 1.95 3.40 2.28 8.66 

Cuyahoga ................................................. 6.46 2.10 11.00 13.10 17.65 50.31 

Geauga .................................................... 0.03 0.00 0.90 0.94 2.20 4.07 

Lake ......................................................... 4.93 0.01 3.20 3.82 4.71 16.67 

Lorain ....................................................... 1.95 0.01 3.70 4.35 5.76 15.77 

Medina ..................................................... 0.21 0.02 1.50 1.82 5.85 9.40 

Portage ..................................................... 0.29 0.00 1.39 2.69 3.93 8.30 

Summit ..................................................... 0.75 0.44 3.13 5.08 11.15 20.55 

Area Totals ....................................... 15.65 2.58 26.77 35.20 53.53 133.73 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71454 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 8—CLEVELAND AREA PROJECTED VOC EMISSIONS FOR INTERIM MAINTENANCE YEAR 2020 (TPSD) 

County Point AIR Non-road Area On-road Total 

Ashtabula ................................................. 7.07 0.00 4.01 3.66 1.38 16.12 

Cuyahoga ................................................. 2.57 0.49 16.66 31.56 12.18 63.46 

Geauga .................................................... 0.04 0.00 2.37 3.94 1.45 7.80 

Lake ......................................................... 0.66 0.01 4.56 6.15 2.85 14.23 

Lorain ....................................................... 2.50 0.02 5.36 7.14 3.79 18.81 

Medina ..................................................... 0.62 0.04 2.45 5.03 2.78 10.92 

Portage ..................................................... 0.91 0.00 3.18 5.69 2.39 12.17 

Summit ..................................................... 1.14 0.11 5.09 13.87 6.96 27.17 

Area Totals ....................................... 15.51 0.67 43.68 77.04 33.78 170.68 

TABLE 9—CLEVELAND AREA PROJECTED NOX EMISSIONS FOR MAINTENANCE YEAR 2030 (TPSD) 

County Point AIR Non-road Area On-road Total 

Ashtabula ................................................. 1.42 0.00 1.36 2.67 1.56 7.01 

Cuyahoga ................................................. 6.06 2.68 7.66 12.03 12.01 40.44 

Geauga .................................................... 0.03 0.00 0.61 0.95 1.59 3.18 

Lake ......................................................... 4.95 0.01 2.36 3.24 3.25 13.81 

Lorain ....................................................... 1.96 0.01 2.40 3.49 3.86 11.72 

Medina ..................................................... 0.28 0.02 0.79 1.58 4.30 6.97 

Portage ..................................................... 0.29 0.00 0.79 2.15 2.90 6.13 

Summit ..................................................... 0.77 0.58 1.86 4.66 8.62 16.49 

Area Totals ....................................... 15.76 3.30 17.83 30.77 38.09 105.75 

TABLE 10—CLEVELAND AREA PROJECTED VOC EMISSIONS FOR MAINTENANCE YEAR 2030 (TPSD) 

County Point AIR Non-road Area On-road Total 

Ashtabula ......................................................................... 7.15 0.01 2.18 3.58 1.06 13.98 

Cuyahoga ......................................................................... 2.49 0.60 14.86 30.93 9.37 58.25 

Geauga ............................................................................ 0.04 0.00 2.13 3.87 1.11 7.15 

Lake ................................................................................. 0.65 0.01 2.77 6.06 2.15 11.64 

Lorain ............................................................................... 2.50 0.03 3.78 6.95 2.86 16.10 

Medina ............................................................................. 0.63 0.04 2.11 4.97 2.22 9.97 

Portage ............................................................................. 0.89 0.00 2.52 5.61 2.00 11.02 

Summit ............................................................................. 1.10 0.13 4.80 13.62 6.01 25.68 

Area Totals ............................................................... 15.47 0.82 35.15 75.59 26.78 153.81 

TABLE 11—PROJECTED CHANGE IN NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS IN THE CLEVELAND AREA BETWEEN 2014 AND 2030 

(TPSD) 

NOX VOC 

2014 2020 2030 

Net change 

(2014– 

2030) 

2014 2020 2030 

Net change 

(2014– 

2030) 

Point ................................. 31.81 15.65 15.76 ¥16.05 15.30 15.51 15.47 0.17 

AIR ................................... 2.20 2.58 3.30 1.10 0.60 0.67 0.82 0.22 

Non-road .......................... 57.39 26.77 17.83 ¥39.56 37.87 43.68 35.15 ¥2.72 

Area .................................. 37.01 35.20 30.77 ¥6.24 79.17 77.04 75.59 ¥3.58 

Onroad ............................. 94.56 53.53 38.09 ¥56.47 49.35 33.78 26.78 ¥22.57 

Total .......................... 222.97 133.73 105.75 ¥117.22 182.29 170.68 153.81 ¥28.48 

In summary, the maintenance 

demonstration for the Cleveland area 

shows maintenance of the 2008 ozone 

standard by providing emissions 

information to support the 

demonstration that future emissions of 

NOX and VOC will remain at or below 

2014 emission levels when taking into 

account both future source growth and 

implementation of future controls. In 

the Cleveland area, NOX and VOC 

emissions are projected to decrease by 

117.22 TPSD and 28.48 TPSD, 

respectively, between 2014 and 2030. 

3. Continued Air Quality Monitoring 

Ohio has committed to continue to 

operate the ozone monitors listed in 

Table 1 above. Ohio has committed to 

consult with EPA prior to making 

changes to the existing monitoring 

network should changes become 

necessary in the future. Ohio remains 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 71455 

obligated to meet monitoring 

requirements and to continue to perform 

quality assurance of monitoring data in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and to 

enter all data into the AQS in 

accordance with Federal guidelines. 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

The State of Ohio has certified that it 

has the legal authority to enforce and 

implement the requirements of the 

maintenance plan for the Cleveland 

area. This includes the authority to 

adopt, implement, and enforce any 

subsequent emission control measures 

determined to be necessary to correct 

future ozone attainment problems. 

Verification of continued attainment 

is accomplished through operation of 

the ambient ozone monitoring network 

and the periodic update of the area’s 

emissions inventory. Ohio will continue 

to operate the current ozone monitors 

located in the Cleveland area. There are 

no plans to discontinue operation, 

relocate, or otherwise change the 

existing ozone monitoring network 

other than through revisions in the 

network approved by the EPA. 

In addition, to track future levels of 

emissions, Ohio will continue to 

develop and submit to EPA updated 

emission inventories for all source 

categories at least once every three 

years, consistent with the requirements 

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

CFR 51.102. The Consolidated 

Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) was 

promulgated by EPA on June 10, 2002 

(67 FR 39602). The CERR was replaced 

by the Air Emissions Reporting 

Requirements (AERR) on December 17, 

2008 (73 FR 76539). The most recent 

triennial inventory for Ohio was 

compiled for 2014. Point source 

facilities covered by Ohio’s emission 

statement rule, Ohio Administrative 

Code, Chapter 3745–24, will continue to 

submit VOC and NOX emissions on an 

annual basis. 

5. What is the maintenance plan for the 

Cleveland area? 

Section 175A of the CAA requires that 

the state must adopt a maintenance 

plan, as a SIP revision, that includes 

such contingency measures as EPA 

deems necessary to assure that the state 

will promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation 

of the area to attainment of the NAAQS. 

The maintenance plan must identify: 

The contingency measures to be 

considered and, if needed for 

maintenance, adopted and 

implemented; a schedule and procedure 

for adoption and implementation; and, 

a time limit for action by the state. The 

state should also identify specific 

indicators to be used to determine when 

the contingency measures need to be 

considered, adopted, and implemented. 

The maintenance plan must include a 

commitment that the state will 

implement all measures with respect to 

the control of the pollutant that were 

contained in the SIP before 

redesignation of the area to attainment 

in accordance with section 175A(d) of 

the CAA. 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, Ohio has adopted a maintenance 

plan for the Cleveland area including 

contingency measures to address 

possible future ozone air quality 

problems. The specific indicators 

adopted by Ohio to be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be considered have 

two levels of response, a warning level 

response and an action level response. 

In Ohio’s plan, a warning level 

response will be triggered when an 

annual 4th high 8-hour average ozone 

monitored value of 0.079 ppm or higher 

is monitored within the maintenance 

area. A warning level response will 

consist of Ohio EPA conducting a study 

to determine whether the ozone value 

indicates a trend toward higher ozone 

values or whether emissions appear to 

be increasing. The study will evaluate 

whether the trend, if any, is likely to 

continue and, if so, the control measures 

necessary to reverse the trend. The 

study will consider ease and timing of 

implementation as well as economic 

and social impacts. Implementation of 

necessary controls in response to a 

warning level response trigger will take 

place within 10 months from the 

conclusion of the most recent ozone 

season. 

In Ohio’s plan, an action level 

response is triggered when a two-year 

average of the annual 4th high 8-hour 

average ozone concentrations is 0.076 

ppm or greater is monitored within the 

maintenance area. A violation of the 

standard within the maintenance area 

also triggers an action level response. 

When an action level response is 

triggered, Ohio EPA, in conjunction 

with the metropolitan planning 

organization or regional council of 

governments, will determine what 

additional control measures are needed 

to assure future attainment of the ozone 

standard. Control measures selected will 

be adopted and implemented within 18 

months from the close of the ozone 

season that prompted the action level. 

Ohio EPA may also consider if 

significant new regulations not 

currently included as part of the 

maintenance provisions will be 

implemented in a timely manner and 

would thus constitute an adequate 

contingency measure response. 

Ohio EPA included the following list 

of potential contingency measures in its 

maintenance plan: 

1. Tighten VOC RACT on existing 

sources covered by EPA Control 

Technique Guidelines issued after the 

1990 CAA. 

2. Apply VOC RACT to smaller 

existing sources. 

3. One or more transportation control 

measures sufficient to achieve at least 

half a percent reduction in actual areawide VOC emissions. Transportation 

measures will be selected from the 

following, based upon the factors listed 

above, after consultation with affected 

local governments: 

a. Trip reduction programs, including, 

but not limited to, employer-based 

transportation management plans, area 

wide rideshare programs, work schedule 

changes, and telecommuting; 

b. traffic flow and transit 

improvements; and 

c. other new or innovative 

transportation measures, not yet in 

widespread use, that affected local 

governments deem appropriate. 

4. Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit 

programs for fleet vehicle operations. 

5. Require VOC or NOX emission 

offsets for new and modified major 

sources. 

6. Increase the ratio of emission 

offsets required for new sources. 

7. Require VOC or NOX controls on 

new minor sources (less than 100 tons). 

8. Adopt additional NOX RACT for 

existing combustion sources. 

EPA finds that the maintenance plan 

adequately addresses the five basic 

components of a maintenance plan: 

Attainment inventory, maintenance 

demonstration, monitoring network, 

verification of continued attainment, 

and contingency measures. In addition, 

as required by section 175A(b) of the 

CAA, Ohio has committed to submit to 

EPA an updated ozone maintenance 

plan eight years after redesignation of 

the Cleveland area to cover an 

additional ten years beyond the initial 

10 year maintenance period. Thus, EPA 

proposes to find that the maintenance 

plan SIP revision submitted by Ohio for 

the Cleveland area meets the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA. 

V. Has the state adopted approvable 

Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

(MVBEs)? 

A. MVEBs 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation plans, programs, or 

projects that receive Federal funding or 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
71456 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

support, such as the construction of new 

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

consistent with) the SIP. Conformity to 

the SIP means that transportation 

activities will not cause new air quality 

violations, worsen existing air quality 

problems, or delay timely attainment of 

the NAAQS or interim air quality 

milestones. Regulations at 40 CFR part 

93 set forth criteria and procedures for 

demonstrating and assuring conformity 

of transportation activities to a SIP. 

Transportation conformity is a 

requirement for nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. Maintenance areas 

are areas that were previously 

nonattainment for a particular NAAQS, 

but that have been redesignated to 

attainment with an approved 

maintenance plan for the NAAQS. 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIPs for nonattainment areas and 

maintenance plans for areas seeking 

redesignations to attainment of the 

ozone standard and maintenance areas. 

See the SIP requirements for the 2008 

ozone standard in EPA’s March 6, 2015 

implementation rule (80 FR 12264). 

These control strategy SIPs (including 

RFP plans and attainment plans) and 

maintenance plans must include MVEBs 

for criteria pollutants, including ozone, 

and their precursor pollutants (VOC and 

NOX for ozone) to address pollution 

from on-road transportation sources. 

The MVEBs are the portion of the total 

allowable emissions that are allocated to 

highway and transit vehicle use that, 

together with emissions from other 

sources in the area, will provide for 

attainment or maintenance. See 40 CFR 

93.101. 

Under 40 CFR part 93, an MVEB for 

an area seeking a redesignation to 

attainment must be established, at 

minimum, for the last year of the 

maintenance plan. A state may adopt 

MVEBs for other years as well. The 

MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions 

from an area’s planned transportation 

system. The MVEB concept is further 

explained in the preamble to the 

November 24, 1993, Transportation 

Conformity Rule (58 FR 62188). The 

preamble also describes how to 

establish the MVEB in the SIP and how 

to revise the MVEB, if needed, 

subsequent to initially establishing a 

MVEB in the SIP. 

B. What is the status of EPA’s adequacy 

determination for the proposed VOC 

and NOX MVEBs for the Cleveland area? 

When reviewing submitted control 

strategy SIPs or maintenance plans 

containing MVEBs, EPA must 

affirmatively find that the MVEBs 

contained therein are adequate for use 

in determining transportation 

conformity. Once EPA affirmatively 

finds that the submitted MVEBs are 

adequate for transportation purposes, 

the MVEBs must be used by state and 

Federal agencies in determining 

whether proposed transportation 

projects conform to the SIP as required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. 

EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining adequacy of a MVEB are set 

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

for determining adequacy consists of 

three basic steps: Public notification of 

a SIP submission; provision for a public 

comment period; and EPA’s adequacy 

determination. This process for 

determining the adequacy of submitted 

MVEBs for transportation conformity 

purposes was initially outlined in EPA’s 

May 14, 1999, guidance, ‘‘Conformity 

Guidance on Implementation of March 

2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.’’ 

EPA adopted regulations to codify the 

adequacy process in the Transportation 

Conformity Rule Amendments for the 

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

Ambient Air Quality Standards and 

Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing 

Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments—Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’ 

on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). 

Additional information on the adequacy 

process for transportation conformity 

purposes is available in the proposed 

rule titled, ‘‘Transportation Conformity 

Rule Amendments: Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Changes,’’ 

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

As discussed above, Ohio’s 

maintenance plan includes NOX and 

VOC MVEBs for the Cleveland area for 

2030 and 2020, the last year of the 

maintenance period and the interim 

year, respectively. EPA reviewed the 

VOC and NOX MVEBs through the 

adequacy process. Ohio’s April 21, 

2016, maintenance plan SIP submission, 

including the Cleveland area VOC and 

NOX MVEBs was open for public 

comment on EPA’s adequacy Web site 

on July 22, 2016, found at: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ 

transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public 

comment period on adequacy of the 

2020 and 2030 MVEBs for the Cleveland 

area closed on August 22, 2016. No 

comments on the submittal were 

received during the adequacy comment 

period. The submitted maintenance 

plan, which included the MVEBs, was 

endorsed by the Director of the Ohio 

EPA and was subject to a state public 

hearing held on June 27, 2016, in 

Cleveland, Ohio. Ohio EPA received no 

comments during this public hearing. 

The MVEBS were developed as part of 

an interagency consultation process 

which includes Federal, state, and local 

agencies. The MVEBS were clearly 

identified and precisely quantified. 

These MVEBs, when considered 

together with all other emissions 

sources, are consistent with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone 

standard. 

TABLE 12—MVEBS FOR THE CLEVELAND AREA, TPSD 

Attainment 

year 2014 

on-road 

emissions 

2020 

Estimated 

on-road 

emissions 

2020 Mobile 

safety margin 

allocation 

2020 MVEBs 

2030 

Estimated 

on-road 

emissions 

2030 Mobile 

safety margin 

allocation 

2030 MVEBs 

VOC ............................. 49.35 33.78 5.07 38.85 26.78 4.02 30.80 

NOX .............................. 94.56 53.53 8.03 61.56 38.10 5.72 43.82 

As shown in Table 12, the 2020 and 

2030 MVEBs exceed the estimated 2020 

and 2030 on-road sector emissions. In 

an effort to accommodate future 

variations in travel demand models and 

vehicle miles traveled forecast, Ohio 

EPA allocated a portion of the safety 

margin (described further below) to the 

mobile sector. Ohio has demonstrated 

that the Cleveland area can maintain the 

2008 ozone NAAQS with mobile source 

emissions in the area of 38.85 TPSD and 

30.80 TPSD of VOC and 61.56 TPSD and 

43.82 TPSD of NOX in 2020 and 2030, 

respectively, since despite partial 

allocation of the safety margin, 

emissions will remain under attainment 

year emission levels. EPA, has found 

adequate and is proposing to approve 

the MVEBs for use to determine 

transportation conformity in the 

Cleveland area, because EPA has 

determined that the area can maintain 

attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 200 / Monday, October 17, 2016 / Proposed Rules 71457 

for the relevant maintenance period 

with mobile source emissions at the 

levels of the MVEBs. 

C. What is a safety margin? 

A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference 

between the attainment level of 

emissions (from all sources) and the 

projected level of emissions (from all 

sources) in the maintenance plan. As 

noted in Table 11, the emissions in the 

Cleveland area are projected to have 

safety margins of 117.22 TPSD for NOX

and 28.48 TPSD for VOC in 2030 (the 

total net change between the attainment 

year, 2014, emissions and the projected 

2030 emissions for all sources in the 

Cleveland area). Similarly, there is a 

safety margin of 89.24 TPSD for NOX

and 11.61 TPSD for VOC in 2020. Even 

if emissions reached the full level of the 

safety margin, the counties would still 

demonstrate maintenance since 

emission levels would equal those in 

the attainment year. 

As shown in Table 12 above, Ohio is 

allocating a portion of that safety margin 

to the mobile source sector. Specifically, 

in 2020, Ohio is allocating 5.07 TPSD 

and 8.03 TPSD of the VOC and NOX

safety margins, respectively. In 2030, 

Ohio is allocating 4.02 TPSD and 5.72 

TPSD of the VOC and NOX safety 

margins, respectively. Ohio EPA is not 

requesting allocation to the MVEBs of 

the entire available safety margins 

reflected in the demonstration of 

maintenance. In fact, the amount 

allocated to the MVEBs represents only 

a small portion of the 2020 and 2030 

safety margins. Therefore, even though 

the State is requesting MVEBs that 

exceed the projected on-road mobile 

source emissions for 2020 and 2030 

contained in the demonstration of 

maintenance, the increase in on-road 

mobile source emissions that can be 

considered for transportation 

conformity purposes is well within the 

safety margins of the ozone maintenance 

demonstration. Further, once allocated 

to mobile sources, these safety margins 

will not be available for use by other 

sources. 

VI. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Cleveland area has met the 

requirements for redesignation under 

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

thus proposing to approve Ohio’s 

request to change the legal designation 

of the Cleveland area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

2008 ozone standard. EPA is also 

proposing to approve, as a revision to 

the Ohio SIP, the state’s maintenance 

plan for the area. The maintenance plan 

is designed to keep the Cleveland area 

in attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

through 2030. Finally, EPA finds 

adequate and is proposing to approve 

the newly-established 2020 and 2030 

MVEBs for the Cleveland area. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because 

redesignation is an action that affects 

the status of a geographical area and 

does not impose any new regulatory 

requirements on tribes, impact any 

existing sources of air pollution on 

tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance 

of ozone NAAQS in tribal lands. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: October 5, 2016. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2016–24914 Filed 10–14–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2016–0072; 

4500030115] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Review of Foreign Species 

That Are Candidates for Listing as 

Endangered or Threatened; Annual 

Notification of Findings on 

Resubmitted Petitions; Annual 

Description of Progress on Listing 

Actions 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of review. 

SUMMARY: In this Candidate Notice of 

Review of Foreign Species (CNOR–FS), 

we present an updated list of plant and 

animal species foreign to the United 

States that we regard as candidates for 

addition to the Lists of Endangered and 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS