```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 112 (Friday, June 12, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27973-27985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13855]

[[Page 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: [email protected].
    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, 
[email protected].

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).

[[Page 27974]]

    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 
fourth-highest 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.

[[Page 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 anti-backsliding 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 anti-backsliding 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

[[Page 27976]]

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 three-year 
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 quality-assured 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.

[[Page 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2006 4th high   2007 4th high   2008 4th high     2006-2008
            County                   Monitor           (ppm)           (ppm)           (ppm)       average (ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware......................  Delaware, 39-041-          0.075           0.080           0.075           0.076
                                 0002.
Franklin......................  Koebel School,             0.076           0.078           0.069           0.074
                                 39-049-0028.
                                New Albany, 39-            0.082           0.087           0.083           0.084
                                 049-0029.
                                Franklin Park,             0.079           0.079           0.071           0.076
                                 39-049-0037.
                                Maple Canyon, 39-          0.077           0.079           0.066           0.074
                                 049-0081.
Knox..........................  Centerburg, 39-            0.075           0.080           0.074           0.076
                                 083-0002.
Licking.......................  Heath, 39-089-             0.072           0.078           0.074           0.074
                                 0005.
Madison.......................  London, 39-097-            0.076           0.083           0.071           0.076
                                 0007.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 27978]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 Federally-supported 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 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), and as fulfilling Phase II of the SIP call on

[[Page 27980]]

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 27981]]

                                        Table 5--Comparison of Columbus 2002 and 2006 VOC and NOX Emissions (TPD)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                VOC                                             NOX
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Net change                                      Net change
                                                               2002            2006         (2002-2006)        2002            2006         (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.

[[Page 27982]]

                                       Table 6--Columbus Area VOC and NOX Emissions for 2006, 2012 and 2020 (TPD)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          VOC                                                 NOX
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Net        Net                                      Net        Net
                                                    2006      2012      2020      change     change     2006      2012      2020      change     change
                                                                                2006-2012  2006-2020                                2006-2012  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ There 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 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''

[[Page 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

[[Page 27984]]

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

[[Page 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
```