Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 27973 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0220; FRL–8917–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of the 

Columbus Area to Attainment for 

Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing several 

related actions affecting the Columbus, 

Ohio area. EPA is proposing to make a 

determination under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) that the Columbus 1997 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area has attained 

the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). The 

Columbus area includes Delaware, 

Fairfield, Franklin, Knox, Licking, and 

Madison Counties. This determination 

is based on quality-assured ambient air 

quality monitoring data for the 2006– 

2008 ozone seasons that demonstrate 

that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been 

attained in the area. EPA is proposing to 

approve, as a revision to the Ohio State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), the State’s 

plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS through 2020 in the area. EPA 

is proposing to approve a request from 

the State of Ohio to redesignate the 

Columbus area to attainment of the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. The Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio 

EPA) submitted this request on March 

17, 2009. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 

base year emissions inventory for the 

Columbus area as meeting the 

requirements of the CAA. If EPA’s 

determination of attainment is finalized, 

under EPA’s ozone implementation 

rulemaking the requirements to submit 

certain planning SIPs related to 

attainment (the Reasonably Available 

Control Measure (RACM) requirement, 

the reasonable further progress (RFP) 

and attainment demonstration 

requirements, and the requirement for 

contingency measures) are not 

applicable to the area as long as it 

continues to attain the NAAQS and 

would cease to apply upon 

redesignation. Finally, EPA finds 

adequate and is proposing to approve 

the State’s 2012 and 2020 Motor Vehicle 

Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the 

Columbus area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0220, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: (312) 886–2551. 

4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

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

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009– 

0220. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

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

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to section I of 

this document, ‘‘What Should I 

Consider as I Prepare My Comments for 

EPA?’’ 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, at (312) 886–1767 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–1767, 

dagostino.kathleen@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: 

Table of Contents 

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My 

Comments for EPA? 

II. What Action Is EPA Proposing to Take? 

III. What Is the Background for These 

Actions? 

A. What Is the General Background 

Information? 

B. What Are the Impacts of the December 

22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, United States 

Court of Appeals Decisions Regarding 

EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation Rule? 

IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation? 

V. What Is the Effect of These Actions? 

VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the Request? 

A. Attainment Determination and 

Redesignation 

B. Adequacy of Ohio’s MVEBs 

C. 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory 

VIII. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

27974 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What Action Is EPA Proposing to 

Take? 

EPA is proposing to take several 

related actions. EPA is proposing to 

make a determination that the 

Columbus nonattainment area has 

attained the 8-hour ozone standard and 

that this 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 

Columbus area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to 

approve Ohio’s maintenance plan SIP 

revision for Columbus (such approval 

being one of the CAA criteria for 

redesignation to attainment status). The 

maintenance plan is designed to keep 

the Columbus area in attainment of the 

ozone NAAQS through 2020. EPA is 

proposing to approve the 2002 base year 

emissions inventory for the Columbus 

area as meeting the requirements of 

section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. If EPA’s 

determination of attainment is finalized, 

under the provisions of 40 CFR section 

51.918, the requirement to submit 

certain planning SIPs related to 

attainment (the RACM requirement of 

section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, the RFP 

and attainment demonstration 

requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and 

(6) of the CAA, and the requirement for 

contingency measures of section 

172(c)(9) of the CAA) are not applicable 

to the area as long as it continues to 

attain the NAAQS and would cease to 

be applicable upon redesignation. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the 

newly-established 2012 and 2020 

MVEBs for the Columbus area. The 

adequacy comment period for the 

MVEBs began on February 18, 2009, 

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 March 

20, 2009. EPA did not receive any 

requests for this submittal, or adverse 

comments on this submittal during the 

adequacy comment period. In a letter 

dated March 30, 2009, EPA informed 

Ohio EPA that we had found the 2012 

and 2020 MVEBs to be adequate for use 

in transportation conformity analyses. 

Please see section VII. B. of this 

rulemaking, ‘‘Adequacy of Ohio’s 

MVEBs,’’ for further explanation on this 

process. Therefore, we find adequate, 

and are proposing to approve, the 

State’s 2012 and 2020 MVEBs for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

III. What Is the Background for These 

Actions? 

A. What Is the General Background 

Information? 

Ground-level ozone is not emitted 

directly by sources. Rather, emissions of 

NOX and volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) react in the presence of sunlight 

to form ground-level ozone. NOX and 

VOCs are referred to as precursors of 

ozone. 

The CAA establishes a process for air 

quality management through the 

NAAQS. Before promulgation of the 8- 

hour standard, the ozone NAAQS was 

based on a 1-hour standard. On 

November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56693 and 

56813), the Columbus area was 

designated as a moderate nonattainment 

area under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The area was subsequently redesignated 

to attainment of the 1-hour standard on 

February 1, 1996 (61 FR 3591). At the 

time EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, on June 15, 2005, the 

Columbus area was designated as 

attainment under the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA 

promulgated an 8-hour ozone standard 

of 0.08 parts per million parts (ppm). On 

April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA 

published a final rule designating and 

classifying areas under the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. These designations and 

classifications became effective June 15, 

2004. EPA designated as nonattainment 

any area that was violating the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS based on the three most 

recent years of air quality data, 2001– 

2003. 

The CAA contains two sets of 

provisions, subpart 1 and subpart 2, that 

address planning and control 

requirements for nonattainment areas. 

(Both are found in Title I, part D, 42 

U.S.C. 7501–7509a and 7511–7511f, 

respectively.) Subpart 1 contains general 

requirements for nonattainment areas 

for any pollutant, including ozone, 

governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 

provides more specific requirements for 

ozone nonattainment areas. 

Under EPA’s implementation rule for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, (69 FR 

23951 (April 30, 2004)), an area was 

classified under subpart 2 based on its 

8-hour ozone design value (i.e., the 

three-year average annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration), if it had a 1-hour design 

value at the time of designation at or 

above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour 

design value in Table 1 of subpart 2) (69 

FR 23954). All other areas were covered 

under subpart 1, based upon their 8- 

hour design values (69 FR 23958). The 

Columbus area was designated as a 

subpart 1, 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area by EPA on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 

23857, 23927) based on air quality 

monitoring data from 2001–2003 (69 FR 

23860). 

40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix I provide that the 8-hour 

ozone standard is attained when the 

three-year average of the annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ozone concentration is less than or 

equal to 0.08 ppm, when rounded. The 

data completeness requirement is met 

when the average percent of days with 

valid ambient monitoring data is greater 

than 90%, and no single year has less 

than 75% data completeness. See 40 

CFR part 50, Appendix I, 2.3(d). 

On March 17, 2009, Ohio EPA 

requested that EPA redesignate the 

Columbus area to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone standard. The redesignation 

request included three years of 

complete, quality-assured data for the 

period of 2006 through 2008, indicating 

the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone, as 

promulgated in 1997, had been attained 

for the Columbus area. Under the CAA, 

nonattainment areas may be 

redesignated to attainment if sufficient 

complete, quality-assured data are 

available for the Administrator to 

determine that the area has attained the 

standard, and the area meets the other 

CAA redesignation requirements in 

section 107(d)(3)(E). 

On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), 

EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour 

ozone standard of 0.075. EPA has not 

yet promulgated area designations for 

this standard. While both the 1997 and 

2008 8-hour ozone standards are 

currently in place, the actions addressed 

in this proposed rulemaking relate only 

to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 27975 

B. What Are the Impacts of the 

December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, 

United States Court of Appeals 

Decisions Regarding EPA’s Phase 1 

Implementation Rule? 

1. Summary of Court Decision 

On December 22, 2006, in South 

Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. 

EPA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation Rule for 

the 8-hour Ozone Standard (69 FR 

23951, April 30, 2004). 472 F.3d 882 

(DC Cir. 2006). On June 8, 2007, in 

response to several petitions for 

rehearing, the DC Circuit Court clarified 

that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only 

with regard to those parts of the rule 

that had been successfully challenged. 

Id., Docket No. 04 1201. Therefore, 

several provisions of the Phase 1 Rule 

remain effective: Provisions related to 

classifications for areas currently 

classified under subpart 2 of Title I, part 

D, of the Act as 8-hour nonattainment 

areas; the 8-hour attainment dates; and 

the timing for emissions reductions 

needed for attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The June 8, 2007, 

decision also left intact the Court’s 

rejection of EPA’s reasons for 

implementing the 8-hour standard in 

certain nonattainment areas under 

subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By 

limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand 

EPA’s revocation of the 1-hour standard 

and those anti-backsliding provisions of 

the Phase 1 Rule that had not been 

successfully challenged. The June 8, 

2007, decision reaffirmed the December 

22, 2006, decision that EPA had 

improperly failed to retain four 

measures required for 1-hour 

nonattainment areas under the antibacksliding provisions of the 

regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New 

Source Review (NSR) requirements 

based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment 

classification; (2) section 185 penalty 

fees for 1-hour severe or extreme 

nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be 

implemented pursuant to section 

172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the 

contingency of an area not making 

reasonable further progress toward 

attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for 

failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) 

certain transportation conformity 

requirements for certain types of Federal 

actions. The June 8, 2007, decision 

clarified that the Court’s reference to 

conformity requirements was limited to 

requiring the continued use of 1-hour 

motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8- 

hour budgets were available for 8-hour 

conformity determinations. 

This section sets forth EPA’s views on 

the potential effect of the Court’s rulings 

on this proposed redesignation action. 

For the reasons set forth below, EPA 

does not believe that the Court’s rulings 

alter any requirements relevant to this 

redesignation action so as to preclude 

redesignation or prevent EPA from 

proposing or ultimately finalizing this 

redesignation. EPA believes that the 

Court’s December 22, 2006, and June 8, 

2007, decisions impose no impediment 

to moving forward with redesignation of 

this area to attainment, because even in 

light of the Court’s decisions, 

redesignation is appropriate under the 

relevant redesignation provisions of the 

CAA and longstanding policies 

regarding redesignation requests. 

2. Requirements Under the 8-Hour 

Standard 

With respect to the 8-hour standard, 

the Court’s ruling rejected EPA’s reasons 

for classifying areas under subpart 1 for 

the 8-hour standard, and remanded that 

matter to the Agency. In its January 16, 

2009 proposed rulemaking in response 

to the South Coast decision, EPA has 

proposed to classify Columbus under 

subpart 2 as a moderate area. 74 FR 

2936, 2944. If EPA finalizes this 

rulemaking, the requirements under 

subpart 2 will become applicable when 

they are due, a deadline that EPA has 

proposed to be one year after the 

effective date of a final rulemaking 

classifying areas as moderate or 

marginal. 74 FR 2940–2941. Although a 

future final decision by EPA to classify 

this area under subpart 2 would trigger 

additional future requirements for the 

area, EPA believes that this does not 

mean that redesignation cannot now go 

forward. This belief is based upon: (1) 

EPA’s longstanding policy of evaluating 

requirements in accordance with the 

requirements due at the time the request 

is submitted; and (2) consideration of 

the inequity of applying retroactively 

any requirements that might in the 

future be applied. 

First, at the time the redesignation 

request was submitted, the Columbus 

area was not classified under subpart 2, 

nor were there any subpart 2 

requirements yet due for this area. 

Under EPA’s longstanding 

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

the CAA, to qualify for redesignation, 

states requesting redesignation to 

attainment must meet only the relevant 

SIP requirements that came due prior to 

the submittal of a complete 

redesignation request. See September 4, 

1992, Calcagni memorandum 

(‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests To 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division). See also Michael Shapiro 

Memorandum, September 17, 1993, and 

60 FR 12459, 12465–66 (March 7, 1995) 

(Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor). 

See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 

(7th Cir. 2004), which upheld this 

interpretation. See, e.g. also 68 FR 

25418, 25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) 

(redesignation of St. Louis). 

Moreover, it would be inequitable to 

retroactively apply any new SIP 

requirements that were not applicable at 

the time the request was submitted. The 

DC Circuit has recognized the inequity 

in such retroactive rulemaking. In Sierra 

Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63 (DC Cir. 

2002), the DC Circuit upheld a District 

Court’s ruling refusing to make 

retroactive an EPA determination of 

nonattainment that was past the 

statutory due date. Such a 

determination would have resulted in 

the imposition of additional 

requirements on the area. The Court 

stated: ‘‘Although EPA failed to make 

the nonattainment determination within 

the statutory time frame, Sierra Club’s 

proposed solution only makes the 

situation worse. Retroactive relief would 

likely impose large costs on the States, 

which would face fines and suits for not 

implementing air pollution prevention 

plans in 1997, even though they were 

not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68. 

Similarly here it would be unfair to 

penalize the area by applying to it for 

purposes of redesignation additional SIP 

requirements under subpart 2 that were 

not in effect or yet due at the time it 

submitted its redesignation request. 

3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour 

Standard 

With respect to the 1-hour standard 

requirements, the Columbus area was an 

attainment area subject to a CAA section 

175A maintenance plan under the 1- 

hour standard. The DC Circuit’s 

decisions do not impact redesignation 

requests for these types of areas, except 

to the extent that the Court in its June 

8, 2007, decision clarified that for those 

areas with 1-hour motor vehicle 

emissions budgets in their maintenance 

plans, anti-backsliding requires that 

those 1-hour budgets must be used for 

8-hour conformity determinations until 

replaced by 8-hour budgets. To meet 

this requirement, conformity 

determinations in such areas must 

comply with the applicable 

requirements of EPA’s conformity 

regulations at 40 CFR part 93. 

With respect to the three other antibacksliding provisions for the 1-hour 

standard that the Court found were not 

properly retained, the Columbus area is 

an attainment area subject to a 

maintenance plan for the 1-hour 

standard, and the NSR, contingency 

27976 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

measure (pursuant to section 172(c)(9) 

or 182(c)(9)), and fee provision 

requirements no longer apply to an area 

that has been redesignated to attainment 

of the 1-hour standard. 

Thus, the decision in South Coast Air 

Quality Management Dist. would not 

preclude EPA from finalizing the 

redesignation of this area. 

IV. What Are the Criteria for 

Redesignation? 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) allows for redesignation 

provided that: (1) The Administrator 

determines that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS; (2) the 

Administrator has fully approved the 

applicable implementation plan for the 

area under section 110(k); (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 

and applicable Federal air pollutant 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable reductions; (4) the 

Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A; and (5) the state containing such 

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area under section 110 and part 

D. 

EPA provided guidance on 

redesignation in the General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the 

CAA Amendments of 1990 on April 16, 

1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented 

this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 

18070). EPA has provided further 

guidance on processing redesignation 

requests in the following documents: 

‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design 

Value Calculations,’’ Memorandum 

from William G. Laxton, Director, 

Technical Support Division, June 18, 

1990; 

‘‘Maintenance Plans for Redesignation 

of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum 

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

Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 

1992; 

‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from 

G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 

Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 

1992; 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests 

To Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, September 4, 1992; 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean 

Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, October 28, 1992; 

‘‘Technical Support Documents 

(TSDs) for Redesignation Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment 

Areas,’’ Memorandum from G.T. Helms, 

Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide 

Programs Branch, August 17, 1993; 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, September 17, 1993; 

‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in 

Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone 

and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’ 

Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, 

Acting Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, to Air Division 

Directors, Regions 1–10, November 30, 

1993. 

‘‘Part D New Source Review (part D 

NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; 

and 

‘‘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. 

V. What Is the Effect of These Actions? 

Approval of the redesignation request 

would change the official designation of 

the area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

found at 40 CFR part 81. It would also 

incorporate into the Ohio SIP a plan for 

maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

through 2020. The maintenance plan 

includes contingency measures to 

remedy future violations of the 8-hour 

NAAQS. It also establishes MVEBs of 

54.86 and 36.60 tons per day (tpd) VOC 

and 91.64 and 46.61 tpd NOX for the 

years 2012 and 2020, respectively. 

VI. What Is EPA’s Analysis of the 

Request? 

A. Attainment Determination and 

Redesignation 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the Columbus area 

has attained the 8-hour ozone standard 

and that the area has met all other 

applicable section 107(d)(3)(E) 

redesignation criteria. The basis for 

EPA’s determination is as follows: 

1. The Area Has Attained the 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)) 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the Columbus area 

has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

For ozone, an area may be considered to 

be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if 

there are no violations, as determined in 

accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and part 

50, Appendix I, based on three 

complete, consecutive calendar years of 

quality-assured air quality monitoring 

data. To attain this standard, the threeyear average of the fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations measured at each 

monitor within an area over each year 

must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the 

rounding convention described in 40 

CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard 

is attained if the design value is 0.084 

ppm or below. The data must be 

collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and 

recorded in the Aerometric Information 

Retrieval System (AIRS). The monitors 

generally should have remained at the 

same location for the duration of the 

monitoring period required for 

demonstrating attainment. 

Ohio EPA submitted ozone 

monitoring data for the 2006 to 2008 

ozone seasons. Ohio EPA qualityassured the ambient monitoring data in 

accordance with 40 CFR 58.10, and 

recorded it in the AIRS database, thus 

making the data publicly available. The 

data meet the completeness criteria in 

40 CFR 50, Appendix I, which requires 

a minimum completeness of 75 percent 

annually and 90 percent over each three 

year period. Monitoring data is 

presented in Table 1 below. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 27977 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL 4TH HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATION AND THREE YEAR AVERAGES OF 4TH

HIGH DAILY MAXIMUM 8-HOUR OZONE CONCENTRATIONS

County Monitor 2006 4th high 

(ppm) 

2007 4th high 

(ppm) 

2008 4th high 

(ppm) 

2006–2008 

average 

(ppm) 

Delaware ........................................... Delaware, 39–041–0002 .................. 0.075 0.080 0.075 0.076 

Franklin ............................................. Koebel School, 39–049–0028 .......... 0.076 0.078 0.069 0.074 

New Albany, 39–049–0029 .............. 0.082 0.087 0.083 0.084 

Franklin Park, 39–049–0037 ............ 0.079 0.079 0.071 0.076 

Maple Canyon, 39–049–0081 .......... 0.077 0.079 0.066 0.074 

Knox .................................................. Centerburg, 39–083–0002 ............... 0.075 0.080 0.074 0.076 

Licking ............................................... Heath, 39–089–0005 ........................ 0.072 0.078 0.074 0.074 

Madison ............................................. London, 39–097–0007 ..................... 0.076 0.083 0.071 0.076 

In addition, as discussed below with 

respect to the maintenance plan, Ohio 

EPA has committed to continue to 

operate an EPA-approved monitoring 

network as necessary to demonstrate 

ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. 

Ohio EPA commits to continue 

monitoring ozone at the sites indicated 

in Table 1. Ohio EPA also commits to 

consult with EPA prior to making 

changes to the existing monitoring 

network, should changes become 

necessary in the future. Ohio EPA 

remains obligated to continue to quality 

assure monitoring data in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 58 and enter all data 

into the Air Quality System in 

accordance with Federal guidelines. In 

summary, EPA believes that the data 

submitted by Ohio provide an adequate 

demonstration that the Columbus area 

has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

and currently available data show that 

the area continues to attain the 

standard. Should the area violate the 

standard before the redesignation is 

finalized, EPA will not go forward with 

the redesignation. 

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D; and the Area Has a Fully 

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) 

(Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii)) 

We have determined that Ohio has 

met all currently applicable SIP 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation for the Columbus area 

under section 110 of the CAA (general 

SIP requirements). We are also 

proposing to determine that the Ohio 

SIP meets all SIP requirements currently 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

under part D of Title I of the CAA 

(requirements specific to subpart 1 

nonattainment areas), in accordance 

with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, 

with the exception of the base year 

emissions inventory, we have 

determined that the Ohio SIP is fully 

approved with respect to all applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation, in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As discussed 

below, in this action EPA is proposing 

to approve Ohio’s 2002 base year 

emissions inventory. 

In proposing these determinations, we 

have ascertained what SIP requirements 

are applicable to the area for purposes 

of redesignation, and have determined 

that the portions of the SIP meeting 

these requirements are fully approved 

under section 110(k) 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 (see ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, 

September 4, 1992) 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 September 17, 1993, Michael 

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). 

Since EPA is proposing here to 

determine that the area has attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, under 40 

CFR 51.918, if that determination is 

finalized, the requirements to submit 

certain planning SIPs related to 

attainment, including attainment 

demonstration requirements (the RACM 

requirement of section 172(c)(1) of the 

CAA, the RFP and attainment 

demonstration requirements of sections 

172(c)(2) and (6) and 182(b)(1) of the 

CAA, and the requirement for 

contingency measures of section 

172(c)(9) of the CAA) would not be 

applicable to the area as long as it 

continues to attain the NAAQS and 

would cease to apply upon 

redesignation. In addition, in the 

context of redesignations, EPA has 

interpreted requirements related to 

attainment as not applicable for 

purposes of redesignation. For example, 

in the General Preamble EPA stated that: 

[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are 

directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by 

the applicable date. These requirements no 

longer apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for redesignation. 

Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance 

plans * * * provides specific requirements 

for contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas. ‘‘General Preamble 

for the Interpretation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ (General 

Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 

1992). 

See also Calcagni memorandum at 6 

(‘‘The requirements for reasonable 

further progress and other measures 

needed for attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning for areas not attaining the 

standard.’’). 

a. The Columbus Area Has Met All 

Applicable Requirements for Purposes 

of Redesignation Under Section 110 and 

Part D of the CAA 

i. Section 110 General SIP 

Requirements 

Section 110(a) of Title I of the CAA 

contains the general requirements for a 

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

implementation plan submitted by a 

27978 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1On October 27, 1998 (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 EPA has developed rules governing the 

control of NOX emissions from Electric Generating 

Units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, 

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). EPA approved Ohio’s rules as meeting 

Phase II of the NOX SIP call on February 4, 2008 

(73 FR 6427). 

state must have been adopted by the 

state after reasonable public notice and 

hearing, and that, among other things, it 

includes enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CAA; provides 

for establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems 

and procedures necessary to monitor 

ambient air quality; provides for 

implementation of a source permit 

program to regulate the modification 

and construction of any stationary 

source within the areas covered by the 

plan; includes provisions for the 

implementation of part C, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part 

D, NSR permit programs; includes 

criteria for stationary source emission 

control measures, monitoring, and 

reporting; includes provisions for air 

quality modeling; and provides for 

public and local agency participation in 

planning and emission control rule 

development. 

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

requires that SIPs 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 air 

pollutants (NOX SIP Call 1 and Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162, 

May 12, 2005)). However, the section 

110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are 

not linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classification. EPA believes that the 

requirements linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classification are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. The transport SIP submittal 

requirements, where applicable, 

continue to apply to a state regardless of 

the designation of any one particular 

area in the state. Thus, we believe that 

these requirements should not be 

construed to be applicable requirements 

for purposes of redesignation. 

Further, we believe that the other 

section 110 elements described above 

that are not connected with 

nonattainment plan submissions and 

not linked with an area’s attainment 

status are also not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. A state remains subject to 

these requirements after an area is 

redesignated to attainment. We 

conclude that only the section 110 and 

part D requirements which are linked 

with a particular area’s designation and 

classification are the relevant measures 

which we may consider in evaluating a 

redesignation request. This approach is 

consistent with EPA’s existing policy on 

applicability of conformity and 

oxygenated fuels requirements for 

redesignation purposes, as well as with 

section 184 ozone transport 

requirements. See Reading, 

Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176, 

October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 

1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, 

final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 

1995). See also the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio ozone 

redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 

2000), and in 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 they are 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA has previously 

approved provisions of the Ohio SIP 

addressing section 110 elements under 

the 1-hour ozone standard (40 CFR 

52.1870). Further, in submittals dated 

December 5, 2007, and September 19, 

2008, Ohio confirmed that the State 

continues to meet the section 110 

requirements for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. EPA has not yet taken 

rulemaking action on these submittals; 

however, such approval is not necessary 

for redesignation. 

ii. Part D Requirements 

EPA has determined that, if EPA 

finalizes the approval of the base year 

emissions inventory discussed in 

section VII.C. of this rulemaking, the 

Ohio SIP will meet the applicable SIP 

requirements for the Columbus area 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

under part D of the CAA. Subpart 1 of 

part D, found in sections 172–176 of the 

CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment 

requirements applicable to all 

nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part 

D, which includes section 182 of the 

CAA, establishes additional specific 

requirements depending on the area’s 

nonattainment classification. 

Since the Columbus area was not 

classified under subpart 2 of part D at 

the time its redesignation request was 

submitted, the subpart 2 requirements 

do not apply for purposes of 

redesignation. The applicable subpart 1 

requirements are contained in sections 

172(c)(1)–(9) and in section 176. 

Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements 

For purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation request, the applicable 

section 172 SIP requirements for the 

Columbus area are contained in sections 

172(c)(1)–(9). A thorough discussion of 

the requirements contained in section 

172 can be found in the General 

Preamble for Implementation of Title I 

(57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). 

Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans 

for all nonattainment areas to provide 

for the implementation of all RACM as 

expeditiously as practicable and shall 

provide for attainment of the national 

primary ambient air quality standards. 

The EPA interprets this requirement to 

impose a duty on all nonattainment 

areas to consider all available control 

measures and to adopt and implement 

such measures as are reasonably 

available for implementation in the area 

as components of the area’s attainment 

demonstration. On November 25, 2008 

and February 2, 2009, Ohio EPA 

submitted an attainment demonstration 

and identified the control measures 

necessary to attain the NAAQS in the 

Columbus area. However, because 

attainment has been reached, no 

additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment, and section 

172(c)(1) requirements are no longer 

considered to be applicable as long as 

the area continues to attain the 

standard. 

The RFP requirement under section 

172(c)(2) is defined as progress that 

must be made toward attainment. This 

requirement is not relevant because the 

Columbus area has demonstrated 

monitored attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS. (General Preamble, 57 FR 

13564). In addition, because the 

Columbus area has attained the ozone 

NAAQS and is no longer subject to an 

RFP requirement, the requirement to 

submit the section 172(c)(9) contingency 

measures are not applicable 

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission 

and approval of a comprehensive, 

accurate and current inventory of actual 

emissions. As part of Ohio’s 

redesignation request for the Columbus 

area, the state submitted a 2002 base 

year emissions inventory. As discussed 

below, EPA is proposing to approve the 

2002 base year inventory that Ohio 

submitted with the redesignation 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 27979 

request as meeting the section 182(a)(1) 

emissions inventory requirement. 

Section 172(c)(4) requires the 

identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources to be 

allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) 

requires source permits for the 

construction and operation of new and 

modified major stationary sources 

anywhere in the nonattainment area. 

EPA has determined that, since PSD 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation, areas being redesignated 

need not comply with the requirement 

that a NSR program be approved prior 

to redesignation, provided that the area 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

NAAQS without part D NSR. A more 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ Ohio has 

demonstrated that the Columbus area 

will be able to maintain the standard 

without part D NSR in effect; therefore, 

EPA concludes that the State need not 

have a fully approved part D NSR 

program prior to approval of the 

redesignation request. The State’s PSD 

program will become effective in the 

Columbus area upon redesignation to 

attainment. 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). 

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

contain control measures necessary to 

provide for attainment of the standard. 

Because attainment has been reached, 

no additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment. 

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

meet the applicable provisions of 

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

believe the Ohio SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) for 

purposes of redesignation. 

Subpart 1 Section 176 Conformity 

Requirements 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that Federallysupported or funded activities, 

including highway projects, conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIPs. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects developed, funded or approved 

under Title 23 of the U.S. Code and the 

Federal Transit Act (transportation 

conformity) as well as to all other 

Federally-supported or funded projects 

(general conformity). State conformity 

revisions must be consistent with 

Federal conformity regulations relating 

to consultation, enforcement, and 

enforceability, which EPA promulgated 

pursuant to CAA requirements. 

EPA believes that it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request under section 107(d) for two 

reasons. First, the requirement to submit 

SIP revisions to comply with the 

conformity provisions of the CAA 

continues to apply to areas after 

redesignation to attainment since such 

areas would be subject to a section 175A 

maintenance plan. Second, EPA’s 

Federal conformity rules require the 

performance of conformity analyses in 

the absence of Federally-approved state 

rules. Therefore, because areas are 

subject to the conformity requirements 

regardless of whether they are 

redesignated to attainment and, because 

they must implement conformity under 

Federal rules if state rules are not yet 

approved, EPA believes it is reasonable 

to view these requirements as not 

applying for purposes of evaluating a 

redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA, 

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

this interpretation. See also 60 FR 

62748, 62749–62750 (Dec. 7, 1995) 

(Tampa, Florida). 

EPA approved Ohio’s general and 

transportation conformity SIPs on 

March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646), and May 

30, 2000 (65 FR 34395), respectively. 

Ohio has submitted onroad motor 

vehicle budgets for the Columbus area 

of 54.86 and 36.60 tpd VOC and 91.64 

and 46.61 tpd NOX for the years 2012 

and 2020, respectively. The area must 

use the MVEBs from the maintenance 

plan in any conformity determination 

that is effective on or after the effective 

date of the maintenance plan approval. 

b. The Columbus Area Has a Fully 

Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 

110(k) of the CAA 

If EPA issues a final approval of the 

base year emissions inventory, EPA will 

have fully approved the Ohio SIP for the 

Columbus area under section 110(k) of 

the CAA for all requirements applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. EPA may 

rely on prior SIP approvals in approving 

a redesignation request (See page 3 of 

the September 4, 1992, John Calcagni 

memorandum; 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 

25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the 

passage of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has 

adopted and submitted, and EPA has 

fully approved, provisions addressing 

the various required SIP elements 

applicable to the Columbus area under 

the 1-hour ozone standard. In this 

action, EPA is proposing to approve 

Ohio’s 2002 base year emissions 

inventory for the Columbus area as 

meeting the requirement of section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA. No Columbus area 

SIP provisions are currently 

disapproved, conditionally approved, or 

partially approved. 

3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is 

Due to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions Resulting From 

Implementation of the SIP and 

Applicable Federal Air Pollution 

Control Regulations and Other 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

(Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)) 

EPA finds that Ohio has demonstrated 

that the observed air quality 

improvement in the Columbus area is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP, Federal 

measures, and other State-adopted 

measures. 

In making this demonstration, the 

State has calculated the change in 

emissions between 2002 and 2006. Ohio 

used the 2002 nonattainment area base 

year emissions inventory required under 

section 172(c)(3) of the CAA as the 

nonattainment inventory for 

redesignation purposes. The State 

developed an attainment inventory for 

2006, one of the years the Columbus 

area monitored attainment. 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 Columbus and 

upwind areas have implemented in 

recent years. 

a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls 

Implemented 

The following is a discussion of 

permanent and enforceable measures 

that have been implemented in the 

areas: 

i. Stationary Source NOX Rules. Ohio 

EPA developed rules governing the 

control of NOX emissions from Electric 

Generating Units (EGUs), major nonEGU industrial boilers, 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 fulfilling Phase II of the SIP call on 

27980 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

February 4, 2008 (73 FR 6427). 

Beginning in 2004, this rule accounts for 

approximately a 31 percent reduction in 

statewide NOX emissions. 

ii. 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 National 

Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program, 

Tier 2 emission standards for vehicles, 

gasoline sulfur limits, low sulfur diesel 

fuel standards, and heavy-duty diesel 

engine standards. In addition, on June 

29, 2004 (69 FR 38958), EPA issued the 

Clean Air Non-road Diesel Rule, which 

phases in Tier 4 emissions standards 

over the 2008–2015 time period. 

iii. Control Measures in Upwind 

Areas. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 

57356), EPA issued a NOX SIP call 

requiring the District of Columbia and 

22 states to reduce emissions of NOX. 

The reduction in NOX emissions has 

resulted in lower concentrations of 

transported ozone entering the 

Columbus area. Emission reductions 

resulting from regulations developed in 

response to the NOX SIP call are 

permanent and enforceable. 

b. Emission Reductions 

Ohio is using the 2002 base year 

inventory developed pursuant to section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA as the 

nonattainment inventory. In developing 

the 2002 base year inventory, Ohio EPA 

provided point and area source 

inventories to the Lake Michigan Air 

Directors Consortium (LADCO). The 

main purpose of LADCO is to provide 

technical assessments for and assistance 

to its member states on problems of air 

quality. LADCO’s primary geographic 

focus is the area encompassed by its 

member states (Illinois, Indiana, 

Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin) and any 

areas which affect air quality in its 

member states. LADCO processed these 

inventories through the Emission 

Modeling System (EMS) to generate 

summer weekday emissions for VOC 

and NOX. The processed modeling 

inventories were used for the base year 

inventory. The point source data 

provided to LADCO is a combination of 

EPA’s EGU inventory and source 

specific data reported to Ohio EPA for 

non-EGU sources. Area source 

emissions were estimated by Ohio EPA 

using published Emission Inventory 

Improvement Program methodologies or 

methodologies shared by other states. 

Ohio EPA documented the methodology 

used for each area source category. 

Nonroad mobile emissions were 

generated for LADCO using EPA’s 

National Mobile Inventory Model 

(NMIM), with the following exceptions: 

Recreational motorboat populations and 

spatial surrogates were updated; 

emissions estimates were developed for 

commercial marine vessels, aircraft, and 

railroads (MAR), three nonroad 

categories not included in NMIM; and 

onroad mobile emissions were 

calculated using the MOBILE6.2 

emissions model. 

Ohio is using 2006 for the attainment 

year inventory. Ohio EPA developed a 

2005 base year inventory, in 

conjunction with LADCO, using the 

methodology described above for base 

year 2002. With the exception of the 

onroad mobile sector, Ohio EPA used 

growth factors provided by LADCO to 

project this inventory to 2006. Onroad 

mobile emissions were calculated for 

2006 using the MOBILE6.2 emissions 

model. 

Using the inventories described 

above, Ohio’s submittal documents 

changes in VOC and NOX emissions 

from 2002 to 2006 for the Columbus 

area. Emissions data are shown in 

Tables 3 through 5 below. 

TABLE 3—COLUMBUS AREA VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT YEAR 2002 (TPD) 

Point Area Nonroad Onroad Total 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Delaware .......................................................... 0.30 0.02 5.40 0.63 4.28 5.54 9.15 16.07 19.13 22.26 

Fairfield ............................................................. 0.20 5.37 4.97 0.39 1.88 2.42 7.13 11.21 14.18 19.39 

Franklin ............................................................. 3.03 2.43 43.07 4.47 17.51 25.01 64.32 106.77 127.93 138.68 

Knox ................................................................. 0.00 0.00 3.96 0.35 1.08 1.93 2.35 3.26 7.39 5.54 

Licking .............................................................. 0.49 1.72 6.23 0.77 2.51 4.54 10.20 17.44 19.43 24.47 

Madison ............................................................ 0.00 0.00 4.65 0.23 1.09 2.46 4.69 9.20 10.43 11.89 

Total .......................................................... 4.02 9.54 68.28 6.84 28.35 41.90 97.84 163.95 198.49 222.23 

TABLE 4—COLUMBUS VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR ATTAINMENT YEAR 2006 (TPD) 

Point Area Nonroad Onroad Total 

VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX

Delaware .......................................................... 0.44 0.05 5.94 1.24 5.35 8.01 6.70 12.11 18.43 21.41 

Fairfield ............................................................. 0.26 4.38 6.13 0.90 2.17 4.07 4.70 7.73 13.26 17.08 

Franklin ............................................................. 3.00 2.13 46.53 10.69 21.62 27.03 46.55 85.07 117.70 124.92 

Knox ................................................................. 0.00 0.04 3.29 0.60 1.50 1.99 2.09 2.98 6.88 5.61 

Licking .............................................................. 0.52 2.69 8.37 1.59 3.46 3.77 6.97 12.91 19.32 20.96 

Madison ............................................................ 0.13 0.01 2.98 0.41 1.42 2.83 3.26 7.00 7.79 10.25 

Total .......................................................... 4.35 9.30 73.24 15.43 35.52 47.70 70.27 127.80 183.38 200.23 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 27981 

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF COLUMBUS 2002 AND 2006 VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS (TPD) 

VOC NOX

2002 2006 Net change 

(2002–2006) 2002 2006 Net change (2002–2006) 

Point ......................................................... 4.02 4.35 0.33 9.54 9.30 ¥0.24 

Area .......................................................... 68.28 73.24 4.96 6.84 15.43 8.59 

Nonroad ................................................... 28.38 35.52 7.17 41.90 47.70 5.80 

Onroad ..................................................... 97.84 70.27 ¥27.57 163.95 127.80 ¥36.15 

Total .................................................. 198.49 183.38 ¥15.11 222.23 200.23 ¥22.00 

Table 5 shows that the Columbus area 

reduced VOC emissions by 15.11 tpd 

and NOX emissions by 22.00 tpd 

between 2002 and 2006. Based on the 

information summarized above, Ohio 

has adequately demonstrated that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions. 

4. The Area Has a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175a of the CAA (Section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iv)) 

In conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the Columbus 

nonattainment area to attainment status, 

Ohio submitted a SIP revision to 

provide for the maintenance of the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS in the area through 

2020. 

a. What Is Required in a Maintenance 

Plan? 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the required elements of a maintenance 

plan for areas seeking redesignation 

from nonattainment to attainment. 

Under section 175A, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least ten 

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 will 

continue to be maintained for ten years 

following the initial ten-year 

maintenance period. To address the 

possibility of future NAAQS violations, 

the maintenance plan must contain 

contingency measures with a schedule 

for implementation as EPA deems 

necessary to assure prompt correction of 

any future 8-hour ozone violations. 

The September 4, 1992, John Calcagni 

memorandum provides additional 

guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan. The memorandum 

clarifies that an ozone maintenance plan 

should address the following items: The 

attainment VOC and NOX emissions 

inventories, a maintenance 

demonstration showing maintenance for 

the ten years of the maintenance period, 

a commitment to maintain the existing 

monitoring network, factors and 

procedures to be used for verification of 

continued attainment of the NAAQS, 

and a contingency plan to prevent or 

correct future violations of the NAAQS. 

b. Attainment Inventory 

The Ohio EPA developed an 

emissions inventory for 2006, one of the 

years Ohio used to demonstrate 

monitored attainment of the 8-hour 

NAAQS, as described above. The 

attainment level of emissions is 

summarized in Table 4, above. 

c. Demonstration of Maintenance 

Along with the redesignation request, 

Ohio submitted a revision to the 8-hour 

ozone SIP to include a maintenance 

plan for the Columbus area, in 

compliance with section 175A of the 

CAA. This demonstration shows 

maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

standard through 2020 by assuring that 

current and future emissions of VOC 

and NOX for the Columbus 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 2012 and 2020 to 

demonstrate maintenance. Onroad 

emissions for 2012 and 2020 emissions 

were calculated using the MOBILE6.2 

emissions model. Emissions estimates 

for the remaining source categories were 

based on future year inventories 

developed by LADCO for the years 2012 

and 2018. With the exception of MAR, 

nonroad emissions for these years were 

estimated using NMIM. MAR emissions 

were derived by applying growth and 

control factors to the 2005 inventory. 

EGU emissions were based on IPM3.0 

modeling and assume no credit for 

implementation of CAIR in the area. 

Area source and non-EGU point source 

emissions were derived by applying 

growth and control factors to the 2005 

inventory. To derive 2020 emissions 

estimates, Ohio EPA applied LADCO 

growth factors to the 2018 LADCO 

inventory. 

Ohio is in the process of revising its 

state rules for its Best Available 

Technology (BAT) minor source 

permitting program. As discussed 

above, a state can demonstrate 

maintenance of the standard by showing 

that future emissions of VOC and NOX

for the area remain at or below 

attainment year emission levels. Ohio 

EPA’s emissions projections for this 

maintenance plan assume no emissions 

benefits from implementation of the 

BAT program. The LADCO growth 

factors used to project future emissions 

were developed using techniques 

consistent among the LADCO states and 

assume implementation of no minor 

source permitting programs for any 

state, including Ohio. The emission 

projections show that Ohio EPA does 

not expect emissions in the Columbus 

area to exceed the level of the 2006 

attainment year inventory during the 

maintenance period. Ohio’s 

maintenance plan demonstrates that the 

area can maintain the standard through 

2020 applying standard growth factors 

and without the BAT program. EPA 

believes that Ohio has provided 

adequate demonstration of maintenance, 

and that any changes to the BAT 

program should not impact the 

Columbus area’s ability to attain or 

maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Therefore, the issues 

associated with the BAT program are 

not being considered for purposes of 

this redesignation. Nothing in this rule 

or redesignation is intended to affect the 

SIP approvability or non-approvability 

of any revised Ohio BAT rules, and EPA 

will evaluate the approvability of such 

rules when Ohio submits them. 

Emissions data are shown in Table 6 

below. 

27982 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

2There is more uncertainty about the use of SO2

allowances and future projections for SO2

emissions; thus, further review and discussion will 

be needed regarding the appropriateness of using 

these emission projections for future PM2.5 SIP 

approvals and redesignation requests. 

TABLE 6—COLUMBUS AREA VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR 2006, 2012 AND 2020 (TPD) 

VOC NOX

2006 2012 2020 

Net 

change 

2006– 

2012 

Net 

change 

2006– 

2020 

2006 2012 2020 

Net 

change 

2006– 

2012 

Net 

change 

2006– 

2020 

Point ......................................... 4.35 4.88 5.72 0.53 1.37 9.30 9.18 9.75 ¥0.12 0.45 

Area .......................................... 73.24 59.22 52.66 ¥14.02 ¥20.58 15.43 15.61 15.70 0.18 0.27 

Nonroad .................................... 35.52 26.56 26.44 ¥8.96 ¥9.08 47.70 35.13 18.74 ¥12.57 ¥28.96 

Onroad ..................................... 70.27 47.70 31.83 ¥22.57 ¥38.44 127.80 79.69 40.53 ¥48.11 ¥87.27 

Total .................................. 183.38 138.36 116.65 ¥45.02 ¥66.73 200.23 139.61 84.72 ¥60.62 ¥115.51 

The emission projections show that 

Ohio EPA does not expect emissions in 

the Columbus area to exceed the level 

of the 2006 attainment year inventory 

during the maintenance period, even 

without implementation of CAIR. In the 

Columbus area, Ohio EPA projects that 

VOC and NOX emissions will decrease 

by 66.73 tpd and 115.51 tpd, 

respectively, between 2006 and 2020. 

In addition, LADCO performed a 

regional modeling analysis to address 

the effect of the recent court decision 

vacating CAIR. This analysis is 

documented in LADCO’s ‘‘Regional Air 

Quality Analyses for Ozone, PM2.5, and 

Regional Haze: Final Technical Support 

Document (Supplement), September 12, 

2008.’’ LADCO produced a base year 

inventory for 2005 and future year 

inventories for 2009, 2012, and 2018. To 

estimate future EGU NOX emissions 

without implementation of CAIR, 

LADCO projected 2007 EGU NOX

emissions for all states in the modeling 

domain based on Energy Information 

Administration growth rates by state 

(North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC) region) and fuel 

type for the years 2009, 2012 and 2018. 

The assumed 2007–2018 growth rates 

were 8.8% for Illinois, Iowa, Missouri 

and Wisconsin; 13.5% for Indiana, 

Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio; and 

15.1% for Minnesota. Emissions were 

adjusted by applying legally enforceable 

controls, e.g., consent decree or rule. 

EGU NOX emissions projections for the 

states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, 

Ohio, and Wisconsin are shown below 

in Table 7. The emission projections 

used for the modeling analysis do not 

account for certain relevant factors such 

as allowance trading and potential 

changes in operation of existing control 

devices. The NOX projections indicate 

that, due to the NOX SIP call, certain 

State rules, consent decrees resulting 

from enforcement cases, and ongoing 

implementation of a number of mobile 

source rules, EGU NOX is not expected 

to increase in Ohio or any of the States 

in the immediate region, and overall 

NOX emissions in Ohio and the nearby 

region are expected to decrease 

substantially between 2005 and 2020.2

Total NOX emissions projections are 

shown in Table 8, below. 

TABLE 7—EGU NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE STATES OF ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MICHIGAN, OHIO AND WISCONSIN (TPD) FOR

2007, 2009, 2012, AND 2018 

2007 2009 2012 2018 

EGU ................................................................................................................. 1,582 1,552 1,516 1,524 

TABLE 8—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE STATES OF ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MICHIGAN, OHIO AND WISCONSIN (TPD) FOR

THE YEARS 2005, 2009, 2012, AND 2018 

2005 2009 2012 2018 

Total NOX ........................................................................................................ 8,260 6,778 6,076 4,759

Given that 2007 is one of the years 

Ohio used to demonstrate monitored 

attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS, Table 

7 shows that EGU NOX emissions will 

remain below attainment levels through 

2018. If the rate of emissions increase 

between 2012 and 2018 continues 

through 2020, EGU NOX emissions 

would still remain below attainment 

levels in 2020. Furthermore, as shown 

in Table 8, total NOX emissions clearly 

continue to decrease substantially 

throughout the maintenance period. 

Ozone modeling performed by 

LADCO using this emissions data 

supports the conclusion that the 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area will 

maintain the standard throughout the 

maintenance period. Peak modeled 

ozone levels in the area for 2009, 2012 

and 2018 are 0.082 ppm, 0.080 ppm, 

and 0.074 ppm, respectively. These 

projected ozone levels were modeled 

applying only legally enforceable 

controls, e.g., consent decrees, rules, the 

NOX SIP call, federal motor vehicle 

control programs (FMVCP), etc. Because 

these programs will remain in place, 

emission levels, and therefore ozone 

levels, would not be expected to 

increase significantly between 2018 and 

2020. Given that projected emissions 

and modeled ozone levels continue to 

decrease substantially through 2018, it 

is reasonable to infer that a 2020 

modeling run would also show levels 

well below the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

As part of its maintenance plan, the 

State elected to include a ‘‘safety 

margin’’ for the area. A ‘‘safety margin’’ 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 27983 

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 

which continues to demonstrate 

attainment of the standard. The 

attainment level of emissions is the 

level of emissions during one of the 

years in which the area met the NAAQS. 

The Columbus area attained the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS during the 2006–2008 

time period. Ohio used 2006 as the 

attainment level of emissions for the 

area. In the maintenance plan, Ohio 

EPA projected emission levels for 2020. 

For the Columbus area, the emissions 

from point, area, nonroad, and mobile 

sources in 2006 equaled 183.38 tpd of 

VOC. Ohio EPA projected VOC 

emissions for the year 2020 to be 116.65 

tpd of VOC. The SIP submission 

demonstrates that the Columbus area 

will continue to maintain the standard 

with emissions at this level. The safety 

margin for VOC is calculated to be the 

difference between these amounts or, in 

this case, 66.73 tpd of VOC for 2020. By 

this same method, 115.51 tpd (i.e., 

200.23 tpd less 84.72 tpd) is the safety 

margin for NOX for 2020. The safety 

margin, or a portion thereof, can be 

allocated to any of the source categories, 

as long as the total attainment level of 

emissions is maintained. 

d. Monitoring Network 

Ohio currently operates eight ozone 

monitors in the Columbus area. Ohio 

EPA has committed to continue to 

operate these ozone monitors. Further, 

Ohio EPA commits to consult with EPA 

prior to making changes to the existing 

monitoring network, should changes 

become necessary in the future. Ohio 

EPA remains obligated to continue to 

quality assure monitoring data in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and 

enter all data into the Air Quality 

System in accordance with Federal 

guidelines. 

e. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Continued attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS in the Columbus area depends, 

in part, on the State’s efforts toward 

tracking indicators of continued 

attainment during the maintenance 

period. Ohio’s plan for verifying 

continued attainment of the 8-hour 

standard in the Columbus area consists 

of plans to continue ambient ozone 

monitoring in accordance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58. Ohio 

EPA will also continue to develop and 

submit periodic emission inventories as 

required by the Federal Consolidated 

Emissions Reporting Rule (67 FR 39602, 

June 10, 2002) to track future levels of 

emissions. 

f. Contingency Plan 

The contingency plan provisions are 

designed to promptly correct or prevent 

a violation of the NAAQS that might 

occur after redesignation of an area to 

attainment. Section 175A of the CAA 

requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency measures as 

EPA deems necessary to assure that the 

state will promptly correct a violation of 

the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the contingency 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation of the contingency 

measures, 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 adopted and 

implemented. The maintenance plan 

must include a requirement that the 

state will implement all measures with 

respect to control of the pollutant(s) that 

were contained in the SIP before 

redesignation of the area to attainment. 

See section 175A(d) of the CAA. 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, Ohio has adopted a contingency 

plan for the Columbus area to address 

possible future ozone air quality 

problems. The contingency plan 

adopted by Ohio has two levels of 

response, depending on whether a 

violation of the 8-hour ozone standard 

is only threatened (warning level 

response) or has occurred (action level 

response). 

A warning level response will be 

triggered when an annual fourth high 

monitored value of 0.088 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 12 months from the 

conclusion of the most recent ozone 

season. 

An action level response will be 

triggered when a two-year average 

fourth high value of 0.085 ppm is 

monitored within the maintenance area. 

A violation of the standard (a three-year 

average of the annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration of 0.085 ppm or greater) 

also triggers an action level response. 

When an action level response is 

triggered, Ohio EPA will determine 

what additional control measures are 

needed to assure future attainment of 

the ozone standard. Control measures 

selected will be implemented within 18 

months from the close of the ozone 

season that prompted the action level. 

Ohio EPA will 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 a response. 

Ohio EPA included the following list 

of potential contingency measures in the 

maintenance plan: 

i. Lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline 

program; 

ii. Adopt VOC Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) on existing 

sources covered by EPA Control 

Technique Guidelines issued after the 

1990 CAA; 

iii. Apply VOC RACT to smaller 

existing sources; 

iv. One or more transportation control 

measures sufficient to achieve at least 

half a percent reduction in actual area 

wide VOC emissions; 

v. Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit 

programs for fleet vehicle operations; 

vi. High volume, low pressure coating 

application requirements for autobody 

facilities; 

vii. Adopt requirements for cold 

cleaner degreaser operations (low vapor 

pressure solvents); 

viii. Require VOC or NOX emission 

offsets for new and modified major 

sources; 

ix. Require VOC or NOX emission 

offsets for new and modified minor 

sources; 

x. Increase the ratio of emission 

offsets required for new sources; 

xi. Require VOC or NOX controls on 

new minor sources (less than 100 tpy); 

and, 

xii. Adopt NOX RACT for existing 

combustion sources. 

g. Provisions for Future Updates of the 

Ozone Maintenance Plan 

As required by section 175A(b) of the 

CAA, Ohio commits to submit to the 

EPA an updated ozone maintenance 

plan eight years after redesignation of 

the Columbus area to cover an 

additional ten-year period beyond the 

initial ten-year maintenance period. As 

required by section 175(A) of the CAA, 

Ohio has committed to retain the VOC 

and NOX control measures contained in 

the SIP prior to redesignation. 

EPA has concluded that the 

maintenance plan adequately addresses 

the five basic components of a 

27984 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

maintenance plan: Attainment 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring network, verification of 

continued attainment, and a 

contingency plan. The maintenance 

plan SIP revision submitted by Ohio for 

the Columbus area meets the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA. 

B. Adequacy of Ohio’s MVEBs 

1. How Are MVEBs Developed and 

What Are the MVEBs for the Columbus 

Area? 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIP revisions and ozone maintenance 

plans for ozone nonattainment areas and 

for areas seeking redesignations to 

attainment of the ozone standard. These 

emission control strategy SIP revisions 

(e.g., reasonable further progress SIP 

and attainment demonstration SIP 

revisions) and ozone maintenance plans 

create MVEBs based on onroad mobile 

source emissions for criteria pollutants 

and/or their precursors to address 

pollution from cars and trucks. The 

MVEBs are the portions 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. 

Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an 

area seeking a redesignation to 

attainment is established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. 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. 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation projects, such as the 

construction of new highways, must 

‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., be consistent with) 

the part of the SIP that addresses 

emissions from cars and trucks. 

Conformity to the SIP means that 

transportation activities will not cause 

new air quality violations, worsen 

existing air quality violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS. If a 

transportation plan does not conform, 

most new transportation projects that 

would expand the capacity of roadways 

cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 

CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, 

criteria, and procedures for 

demonstrating and assuring conformity 

of such transportation activities to a SIP. 

When reviewing SIP revisions 

containing MVEBs, including 

attainment strategies, rate-of-progress 

plans, and maintenance plans, EPA 

must affirmatively find that the MVEBs 

are ‘‘adequate’’ for use in determining 

transportation conformity. Once EPA 

affirmatively finds the submitted 

MVEBs to be adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes, the MVEBs are 

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 the adequacy of MVEBs are 

set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

EPA’s process for determining 

adequacy of a MVEB consists of three 

basic steps: (1) Providing public 

notification of a SIP submission; (2) 

providing the public the opportunity to 

comment on the MVEB during a public 

comment period; and (3) EPA’s finding 

of adequacy. The process of determining 

the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs 

was initially outlined in EPA’s May 14, 

1999, guidance, ‘‘Conformity Guidance 

on Implementation of March 2, 1999, 

Conformity Court Decision.’’ This 

guidance was codified in the 

Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments for the ‘‘New 8-Hour 

Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards and 

Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing 

Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments—Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’ 

published on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 

40004). EPA follows this guidance and 

rulemaking in making its adequacy 

determinations. 

The Columbus area’s maintenance 

plan contains new VOC and NOX

MVEBs for the years 2012 and 2020. The 

availability of the SIP submission with 

these 2012 and 2020 MVEBs was 

announced for public comment on 

EPA’s Adequacy Web site on February 

18, 2009 at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. 

The EPA public comment period on 

adequacy of the 2012 and 2020 MVEBs 

for the Columbus area closed on March 

20, 2009. No requests for this submittal 

or adverse comments on the submittal 

were received during the adequacy 

comment period. In a letter dated March 

30, 2009, EPA informed Ohio EPA that 

we had found the 2012 and 2020 

MVEBs to be adequate for use in 

transportation conformity analyses. 

EPA, through this rulemaking, is 

proposing to approve the MVEBs for use 

to determine transportation conformity 

in the Columbus area because EPA has 

determined that the area can maintain 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

for the relevant maintenance period 

with mobile source emissions at the 

levels of the MVEBs. Ohio EPA has 

determined the 2012 MVEBs for the 

Columbus area to be 54.86 tpd for VOC 

and 91.64 tpd for NOX. Ohio EPA has 

determined the 2020 MVEBs for the area 

to be 36.60 tpd for VOC and 46.61 tpd 

for NOX. These MVEBs are consistent 

with the onroad mobile source VOC and 

NOX emissions projected by Ohio EPA 

for 2012 and 2020, as summarized in 

Table 6 above. Ohio has demonstrated 

that the Columbus area can maintain the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile 

source emissions of 54.86 tpd and 36.60 

tpd of VOC and 91.64 tpd and 46.615 

tpd of NOX in 2012 and 2020, 

respectively, since emissions will 

remain under attainment year emission 

levels. 

2. 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 6, the Columbus area 

emissions are projected to have safety 

margins of 45.02 tpd for VOC and 60.62 

tpd for NOX in 2012 (the difference 

between the attainment year, 2006, 

emissions and the projected 2012 

emissions for all sources in the 

Columbus area). For 2020, the 

Columbus area emissions are projected 

to have safety margins of 66.73 tpd for 

VOC and 115.51 tpd for NOX. 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. 

The MVEBs requested by Ohio EPA 

contain safety margins for mobile 

sources smaller than the allowable 

safety margins reflected in the total 

emissions for the Columbus area. The 

State is not requesting allocation of the 

entire available safety margins reflected 

in the demonstration of maintenance. 

Therefore, even though the State is 

requesting MVEBs that exceed the 

projected onroad mobile source 

emissions for 2012 and 2020 contained 

in the demonstration of maintenance, 

the increase in onroad 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. 

C. 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory 

As discussed above, section 172(c)(3) 

of the CAA requires areas to submit a 

base year emissions inventory. As part 

of Ohio’s redesignation request for the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 27985 

Columbus area, the State submitted a 

2002 base year emissions inventory. 

This inventory is discussed above and 

summarized in Table 3. EPA is 

proposing to approve this 2002 base 

year inventory as meeting the section 

172(c)(3) emissions inventory 

requirement. 

VII. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the Columbus area 

has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

maintenance plan SIP revision for the 

Columbus area. EPA’s proposed 

approval of the maintenance plan is 

based on Ohio’s demonstration that the 

plan meets the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA, as described more 

fully above. After evaluating Ohio’s 

redesignation request, EPA believes that 

it meets the redesignation criteria set 

forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve 

the redesignation of the Columbus area 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The final 

approval of this redesignation request 

would change the official designation 

for the Columbus area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone standard. EPA is proposing 

to approve the 2002 base year emissions 

inventory for the Columbus area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA. Finally, EPA also 

finds adequate and is proposing to 

approve the State’s 2012 and 2020 

MVEBs for the section 172(c)(3) area. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, National parks, Wilderness 

areas. 

Dated: June 4, 2009. 

Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E9–13855 Filed 6–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MM Docket No. 99–325; DA 09–1127] 

FM Digital Power Increase and 

Associated Technical Studies 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission seeks 

comment on four issues, discussed 

below in the Synopsis, that are related 

to a request by certain private parties, 

identified below, that the technical 

specifications for FM digital audio 

broadcasting (‘‘DAB’’) set forth in the 

Commission’s rules be amended to 

increase the maximum permissible 

operating power from the current level 

of 1 percent of a station’s authorized 

analog power (¥20 dB) up to a 

maximum of 10 percent of a station’s 

authorized analog power (¥10 dB). This 

document establishes a period for 

public comment on these issues and on 

two related technical studies. 

DATES: Comments for this proceeding 

are due on or before July 6, 2009. Reply 

comments are due on or before July 17, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MM Docket No. 99–325, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554, with a copy to 

the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter H. Doyle, Chief, Audio Division, 

Media Bureau, at (202) 418–2700. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of a Public Notice released by