Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of Cincinnati to Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard; Removal of Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs for the Cincinnati and Dayton Areas, 19895-19914 [05-7509]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[R05–OAR–2005–OH–0004; FRL–7899–9]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of
Cincinnati to Attainment of the 1-Hour
Ozone Standard; Removal of Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Programs
for the Cincinnati and Dayton Areas
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The State of Ohio has
requested the EPA to parallel process an
ozone redesignation request and a
number of revisions to Ohio’s air quality
control plan. We are proposing to
determine that the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area has attained the 1-hour ozone
standard for the entire period of 1996–
2004 based on 1-hour ozone monitoring
data demonstrating attainment of the
standard during that period. As a result,
certain attainment demonstration
requirements, along with certain other
related requirements of part D of title I
of the Clean Air Act, are not applicable
to the Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area. We are proposing to
approve Ohio’s request to redesignate
the Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area to attainment of the 1hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). We are
proposing to approve Ohio’s revision of
the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan,
previously approved by us on June 19,
2000, for the Ohio portion of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area. This update
to the plan extends the timeframe for
demonstrating continued maintenance
of the 1-hour ozone standard through
2015, and demonstrates that the 1-hour
ozone standard may be maintained in
this area even with the termination of
the vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
(I/M) program in the Ohio portion of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area. We are
notifying the public that we believe that
the revised motor vehicle emissions
budgets for Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOX) for the Ohio portion of
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area are
adequate for conformity purposes and
are approvable as part of the revised
ozone maintenance plan for this area.
We are proposing to approve new VOC
emission control regulations for various
sources in the Ohio portion of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area and to
approve negative source declarations for
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
some source categories for this area as
long as the State meets certain
conditions. We are proposing approval
of periodic emission inventories for the
Cincinnati area.
Additionally, we are proposing to find
that Ohio has demonstrated that
termination of the I/M program in the
Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area will not interfere with the
attainment and maintenance of the 1hour ozone NAAQS in this area.
Similarly, we are proposing to find that
Ohio has demonstrated that termination
of the I/M program in the Dayton area
will not interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS in this area provided that the
State meets certain conditions.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before May 16, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Regional Material in
EDocket (RME) ID No. R05–OAR–2005–
OH–0004, by one of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. RME, EPA’s
electronic public docket and comments
system, is EPA’s preferred method for
receiving comments. Once in the
system, select ‘‘quick search,’’ then key
in the appropriate RME docket
identification number. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
Fax: (312) 886–5824.
Mail: You may send written
comments to: John Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Hand Delivery: Deliver your
comments to: John Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, 18th Floor, Chicago, Illinois.
Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office’s normal
hours of operation. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
RME ID No. R05–OAR–2005–OH–0004.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, including any
personal information provided, unless a
comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19895
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do
not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through RME, regulations.gov,
or e-mail. The EPA RME Web site and
the Federal regulations.gov Web site are
‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through RME or
regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comments and with
any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comments due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification or replacement of
comments, EPA may not be able to
consider your comments. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and
should be free of any defects or viruses.
For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to Section I of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this document.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket for this proposed rule
are listed in the RME index at https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in RME or
in hard copy at Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and
Radiation Division, 18th floor, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604. (Please telephone Edward Doty
at (312) 886–6057 or contact him
through his e-mail,
doty.edward@epa.gov, before visiting
the Region 5 office).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), United States
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6057,
Doty.Edward@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
following, whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or
‘‘our’’ are used, we mean the United
States Environmental Protection
Agency.
Table of Contents
I. General Information
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
19896
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
A. Does This Proposed Action Apply to
me?
B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document
and Other Related Information?
C. How and to Whom Do I Submit
Comments?
D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare my
Comments for EPA?
II. Proposed Redesignation of the Cincinnati
Area to Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone
NAAQS
A. What Is the Background for This
Proposed Action?
B. What Are the Redesignation Review
Criteria?
C. Has the State of Ohio and the Cincinnati
Area Complied With the Redesignation
Review Criteria?
1. Criterion (1): The Area Must Be
Attaining the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS
2. Criteria (2) and (5): The Area Must Have
a Fully Approved SIP Under Section
110(k); and the Area Must Meet All
Applicable Requirements Under Section
110 and Part D
a. Section 110 Requirements
b. Transport of Ozone Precursors to
Downwind Areas
c. Part D General Requirements for
Nonattainment Areas
d. Section 172(c) Requirements
e. Section 176 Conformity Requirements
f. Subpart 2 Section 182 Requirements
1. 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory
2. Periodic Emission Inventory Updates
3. Emission Statement Requirements
4. Fifteen Percent Rate-Of-Progress Plan
Requirements
5. VOC RACT Requirements
6. Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM)
7. Stage II Vapor Recovery Requirements
8. Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M)
Requirements
9. NOX Emission Control Requirements
g. Conclusions Regarding Criteria (2) and
(5)
3. Criterion (3): The Improvement in Air
Quality Must Be Due to Permanent and
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
4. Criterion (4): The Area Must Have a
Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
Meeting the Requirements of Section
175A
III. Update of the Ohio Ozone Maintenance
Plan for the Cincinnati Area
A. How did EPA Evaluate the Maintenance
Plan Update?
B. How Were the Point and Area Sources
Updated?
C. How Were the Mobile Sources Updated?
D. Does the Updated Maintenance Plan
Reaffirm the Adequacy of the
Maintenance Plan?
IV. Transportation Conformity Emission
Budgets for the Cincinnati Area
A. What Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets?
B. What Is a Safety Margin?
C. How Does This Action Change the
Current Maintenance Plan?
D. What Are Subarea Budgets?
E. Why Is the Request Approvable?
F. What Is the Adequacy and Approval
Process for These Submitted Budgets?
V. Volatile Organic Compounds Emission
Control Regulations
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
A. Source Categories Not Requiring New
VOC Regulations
1. Industrial Cleaning Solvents
2. Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Industry
3. Automobile Refinishing
4. Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Facilities
5. Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Tanks
6. Lithographic Printing
7. Plastic Parts Coating
B. Source Categories for Which VOC RACT
Regulations Have Been Proposed
1. Bakeries
2. Batch Processes
3. Industrial Wastewater
4. SOCMI Reactors/Distillation Units
5. Wood Furniture Manufacturing
VI. Changes in the Ohio SIP To Support the
Removal of Vehicle Inspection And
Maintenance Programs in the Cincinnati
and Dayton Areas
A. What Changes in the Ohio SIP Have
Been Submitted To Support the Removal
of the I/M Programs in the Cincinnati
and Dayton Areas?
B. What Authorities Apply To Removing
the Cincinnati and Dayton I/M Programs
From Active Status and Moving Them to
Contingency Measures in the Ohio SIP?
C. What Is EPA’s Analysis of Ohio’s
Demonstrations of No Interference With
the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS in the
Cincinnati and Dayton Areas?
D. Has Ohio Demonstrated That
Terminating the I/M Programs in the
Cincinnati and Dayton Areas Will Not
Interfere With the Expeditious
Attainment and Maintenance of the 8Hour Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter
NAAQS?
VII. Conclusions on the Redesignation of the
Cincinnati Area to Attainment of the 1Hour Ozone NAAQS And The Removal
Of the Vehicle I/M Programs In The
Cincinnati and Dayton Areas
A. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding
Ohio’s Request for the Redesignation of
the Cincinnati Area to Attainment of the
1-Hour Ozone NAAQS?
B. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding
Ohio’s Ozone Maintenance Plan for the
Cincinnati Area?
C. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding
the VOC and NOX Emission Inventories
Used To Support Ohio’s Ozone
Redesignation Request?
D. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding
Ohio’s Draft RACT Rules?
E. What Are Our Conclusions Concerning
the Elimination of I/M Programs in the
Cincinnati and Dayton Areas?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. Does This Proposed Action Apply to
Me?
This proposed action pertains to the
ground level ozone programs in place in
the Cincinnati (Butler, Clermont,
Hamilton, and Warren Counties) and
Dayton (Clark, Greene, Miami, and
Montgomery Counties) areas. If you own
or operate a VOC or NOX emissions
source in the Cincinnati area or live in
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the Cincinnati area, this proposed action
may impact or apply to you. This
proposed action may also apply to or
impact you if you live in the Dayton
area. Finally, this proposed action may
impact you if you are involved in
mobile source or transportation
planning or implementation in the
Cincinnati or Dayton areas. This action
has impacts on pollution sources in
these Counties, including industrial and
mobile sources of air pollution.
B. How Can I Get Copies of This
Document and Other Related
Information?
1. The Regional Office has established
an electronic public rulemaking file
available for inspection at RME ID No.
R05–OAR–2005–OH–0004, and a hard
copy file which is available for
inspection at the Regional Office. The
official public file consists of the
documents specifically referenced in
this action, any public comments
received, and other information related
to this action. Although a part of the
official docket, the public rulemaking
file does not include CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. The official public
rulemaking file is the collection of
materials that is available for public
viewing at the Air Programs Branch, Air
and Radiation Division, EPA Region 5,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office’s
official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
2. Electronic Access. You may access
this Federal Register document
electronically through the
regulations.gov Web site located at
https://www.regulations.gov, where you
can find, review, and submit comments
on Federal rules that have been
published in the Federal Register, the
Government’s legal newspaper, and that
are open for comment.
For public commenters, it is
important to note that EPA’s policy is
that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public
viewing at the EPA Regional Office, as
EPA receives them and without change,
unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. When EPA
identifies a comment containing
copyrighted material, EPA will provide
a reference to that material in the
version of the comment that is placed in
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
the official public rulemaking file. The
entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available
at the Regional Office for public
inspection.
C. How and to Whom Do I Submit
Comments?
You may submit comments
electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper
receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate
rulemaking identification number by
including the text ‘‘Public comment on
proposed rulemaking Region 5 Air
Docket ‘R05–OAR–2005–OH–0004’ ’’ in
the subject line on the first page of your
comment. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments
received after the close of the comment
period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not
required to consider these late
comments.
D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI
to EPA through RME, regulations.gov, or
e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI information on a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI
and identify electronically within the
file(s) on the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of
the comment that does not contain the
information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public
docket. Information so marked will not
be disclosed except in accordance with
procedure set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject, heading, Federal
Register date and page number);
b. Follow directions—The EPA may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number;
c. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your recommended
changes;
d. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used;
e. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, please explain how you
arrived at your estimates in sufficient
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
detail to allow for them to be
reproduced;
f. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives;
g. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats; and
h. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified in this proposed
rule.
II. Proposed Redesignation of the
Cincinnati Area to Attainment of the 1Hour Ozone NAAQS
A. What Is the Background for This
Proposed Action?
In accordance with section 107(d) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) as
amended in 1977, EPA designated all
counties in the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area (the Ohio portion of this area
includes Butler, Clermont, Hamilton,
and Warren Counties, and the Kentucky
portion of this area includes Boone,
Campbell, and Kenton Counties) as an
ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS in March 1978 (43 FR
8962). On November 6, 1991 (56 FR
56694), pursuant to section 107(d)(4)(A)
of the CAA as amended in 1990, EPA
designated the Cincinnati-Hamilton area
as a moderate ozone nonattainment area
based on monitored violations of the 1hour ozone NAAQS during the 1987–
1989 period.
From 1996 through 1998, air quality
monitors located in Ohio and Kentucky
recorded three years of complete,
quality-assured ambient ozone
monitoring data in the CincinnatiHamilton area that did not violate the 1hour ozone NAAQS.1 Thus, the area
was eligible for consideration of a
redesignation to attainment of the 1hour ozone NAAQS. As noted below,
this area has continued to monitor
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
from the 1996–1998 period through the
present.
In 1999, the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) and the
Commonwealth of Kentucky Natural
Resources and Environmental
Protection Cabinet (Cabinet) submitted
separate requests for the redesignation
of the State-specific portions of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment
of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA
received a request from Ohio EPA on
July 2, 1999 to redesignate the
1 The 1-hour ozone NAAQS is violated when the
annual average expected number of daily peak 1hour ozone concentrations equaling or exceeding
0.125 parts per million (ppm) (125 parts per billion
(ppb)) is 1.05 or greater over a three-year period at
any monitoring site in the area of interest.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19897
Cincinnati area as an attainment/
maintenance area for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. Ohio EPA submitted
additional supporting information on
August 16, 1999, and completed its
redesignation request by submitting a
summary of public hearing results and
comments on December 22, 1999. The
Cabinet submitted a prehearing
redesignation request on October 28,
1999, and requested that the EPA
parallel process this submittal. The
Cabinet completed its redesignation
request, including an adopted ozone
maintenance plan and public hearing
information, in a submittal to the EPA
on December 13, 1999.
On January 24, 2000 (65 FR 3630),
EPA proposed approval of the Ohio and
Kentucky ozone redesignation requests.
This rulemaking also proposed to
determine that the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area had attained the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS by its extended attainment
data, and proposed to approve an
exemption for the area from NOX
emission control requirements
contained in section 182(f) of the CAA.
EPA issued a final rulemaking (65 FR
37879, June 19, 2000), effective July 5,
2000, determining that the CincinnatiHamilton area had attained the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS and approving the Ohio
and Kentucky ozone redesignation
requests, including the States’ plans for
maintaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
in their respective portions of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area, as well as
their NOX exemption requests.
On August 17, 2000, two Ohio
residents and the Ohio chapter of the
Sierra Club petitioned the United States
Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
(Court) for review of EPA’s final rule on
the States’ ozone redesignation requests
for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. The
petitioners urged the Court to find that
the EPA had erred in a number of
respects in approving the redesignation
requests. In its September 11, 2001
decision in this case, the Court upheld
EPA’s actions with respect to all
requirements for redesignation that
related to Kentucky. The Court also
rejected the petitioners’ challenges with
respect to EPA’s approval of the Ohio
redesignation request, with the sole
exception of EPA’s finding that it could
approve Ohio’s redesignation request
before Ohio had fully adopted all of the
VOC emission control rules needed to
comply with the RACT requirements of
part D, subpart 2 of the CAA.
Specifically, the Court rejected the
petitioners’ challenges to, and upheld
EPA’s approvals of the Ohio and
Kentucky ozone maintenance plans and
EPA’s conclusions with respect to
transportation conformity requirements.
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
19898
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
The Court concluded that EPA exceeded
its discretion by determining that Ohio
did not need to fully adopt all of the
RACT rules required by part D, subpart
2 of the CAA. The Court vacated EPA’s
action in redesignating the CincinnatiHamilton area to attainment of the 1hour ozone NAAQS and ‘‘remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.’’ See Wall v. EPA (265 F.3d
436, 6th Circuit 2001).
On February 12, 2002 (67 FR 6411), in
a direct final rule in response to the
Court’s findings, the EPA took action to
reinstate EPA’s redesignation to
attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
for the Kentucky portion of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area. This
rulemaking action was withdrawn on
April 8, 2002 (67 FR 16646), as the
result of the submittal of a public
comment on the direct final rule. The
reinstatement of the attainment
designation for the Kentucky portion of
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area was
subsequently completed through a final
rule on July 31, 2002 (67 FR 49600).
On March 12, 2002 (67 FR 11041),
through a technical amendment to its
June 19, 2000 final rule, the EPA revised
the ozone designation of the Ohio
portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area
to nonattainment of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS with a classification of
moderate nonattainment. The technical
amendment of the original final rule
became effective on April 11, 2002. The
final rule technical amendment,
coupled with EPA’s July 31, 2002 final
rule, created separate designations for
the Ohio and Kentucky portions of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area with regard to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
The Kentucky portion of the area is
designated as attainment for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS, while the Ohio portion
of the area continues to be a
nonattainment area. As noted elsewhere
in this notice, today’s proposed action
applies only to the Ohio portion of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area (only to the
Cincinnati area).
On March 10, 2005, the Ohio EPA
submitted a new redesignation request
and ozone maintenance plan revision
for the Cincinnati area. This request
notes that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area
has monitored attainment of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS continuously from the
1996–1999 period through the present.
This submittal also includes VOC
emission control rules that Ohio was
preparing to adopt to comply with the
RACT requirements of the Clean Air
Act. This submittal notes that Ohio is
scheduling a public hearing on the
redesignation request, maintenance
plan, and VOC RACT rules, and
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
requests EPA to parallel process these
submittal elements.
On April 4, 2005, the Ohio EPA
submitted additional information
including, a negative source declaration
for plastic parts coating, and a
demonstration that terminating the
vehicle I/M programs in the Cincinnati
and Dayton areas will not interfere with
the attainment and maintenance of the
1-hour ozone NAAQS in these areas.
Ohio EPA proposes to revise the ozone
maintenance plans for these areas to
move the I/M programs to the
contingency measure portions of the
maintenance plans. This submittal
further revises the ozone maintenance
demonstrations for these areas and
revises mobile source emission budgets
to reflect the increases in mobile source
VOC and NOX emissions that will result
when the I/M programs are terminated
in these areas. Ohio EPA requests the
EPA to rule on the air quality impacts
of removing these emission control
programs, and commits to completing
analyses in compliance with section
110(l) of the CAA to demonstrate that
dropping these emission reduction
programs will not interfere with
attainment of other air quality standards
and air quality control requirements
covered by the CAA. Other than
removing the emission impacts of the I/
M programs from the maintenance
plans’ emission projections and moving
the I/M programs to the contingency
measures portions of the Cincinnati and
Dayton maintenance plans, Ohio EPA
requests that the remainder of the
Cincinnati and Dayton maintenance
plans remain the same as those
previously approved by the EPA.
B. What Are the Redesignation Review
Criteria?
The CAA provides the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment of a NAAQS. Specifically,
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows
for redesignation of an area to
attainment provided that: (1) The
Administrator of the EPA determines
that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully
approved the applicable state
implementation plan for the area under
section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the
Administrator determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable emission
reductions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP,
applicable Federal air pollution control
regulations, and other permanent and
enforceable emission reductions; (4) the
Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
175A of the CAA; and (5) the State
containing the area has met all
requirements applicable to the area
under section 110 and part D of the
CAA.
EPA provided guidance on
redesignations for the 1-hour ozone
standard in the General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 1992
(57 FR 13498), and supplemented this
guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR
18070). EPA provided further guidance
on processing redesignation requests in
documents including the following:
‘‘Maintenance Plans for Redesignation
of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum
from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30,
1992;
‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,’’ Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1,
1992;
‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests
to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management
Division, September 4, 1992;
‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean
Air Act (Act) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division, October
28, 1992;
‘‘Technical Support Documents
(TSD’s) for Redesignation of Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment
Areas,’’ Memorandum from G.T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After
November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, September 17, 1993;
‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in
Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,’’
Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality
Management Division, to Air Division
Directors, Regions 1–10, November 30,
1993.
‘‘Part D New Source Review (part D
NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994;
and
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
19899
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,
Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’
Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, May 10, 1995.
C. Has the State of Ohio and the
Cincinnati Area Complied With the
Redesignation Review Criteria?
We believe that Ohio has
demonstrated that the CincinnatiHamilton area has attained the 1-hour
ozone standard and has demonstrated
that the Ohio portion of this area has
met all of the applicable section
107(d)(3)(E) redesignation criteria as
discussed below.
1. Criterion (1): The Area Must Be
Attaining the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS
In its June 19, 2000 rulemaking, EPA
issued a final rule determining that the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area had attained
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 65 FR 37879.
While the Court, in Wall v. EPA, vacated
EPA’s action redesignating the area to
attainment, it did not vacate EPA’s
determination of attainment for the
entire area. Therefore, the determination
remains intact and in effect. See EPA’s
final rule reinstating the redesignation
of the Kentucky portion of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area. 67 FR 49600
(July 31, 2002). As a result of the
determination of attainment, EPA also
determined that certain attainment
demonstration requirements, along with
certain other related requirements of
part D of title I of the CAA are not
applicable to the area. See 65 FR 37883–
3884. See Memorandum of John Seitz,
‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,
Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ dated
May 10, 1995. EPA has interpreted the
provisions of subparts 1 and 2 of part D
of title I of the CAA so as not to require
the submission of State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions concerning
attainment demonstrations, Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM),
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP), or
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)
contingency measures, and other related
requirements for so long as an area is
attaining the relevant NAAQS. EPA
explained its rationale in its prior
rulemakings on the Cincinnati area, as
well as in other rulemaking actions. See
for example 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996)
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain), 66 FR 53094
(October 19, 2001) (Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley, Pennsylvania); 60 FR 36723
(July 18, 1995) (Salt Lake and Davis
Counties, Utah), 68 FR 4847,4747, 4751,
4855 (January 30, 2003), 68 FR 25418
(May 12, 2003 (St. Louis, Missouri), 60
FR 37366 (July 20, 1995), 61 FR 31832–
33 (Grand Rapids, Michigan). The
United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit has upheld this
interpretation, Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.
3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996), and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
has also affirmed EPA’s redesignation
actions based on this interpretation.
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th
Cir. 2004).
As a result of EPA’s determination of
attainment, certain attainment
demonstration requirements, section
172(c)(1), section 182(b)(1), 182(j), the
RACM requirement for reasonable
further progress, and the requirement
for contingency measures under
sections 172(c)(9) are not applicable as
long as the Cincinnati-Hamilton area
continues to attain the NAAQS.
We propose to find that the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area has continued
to attain the 1-hour ozone standard and
we propose to approve the redesignation
request submitted by Ohio for the
Cincinnati area as meeting this
requirement. Complete, quality-assured
ambient monitoring data for the 2002–
2004 ozone seasons (April through
October, when the highest ozone
concentrations are expected to occur in
this area) demonstrate that the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS continues to be attained
in this area. In fact, based on monitoring
data, the Cincinnati-Hamilton area has
been attaining the 1-hour ozone
standard continuously from the 1996–
1998 period though 2004.
For ozone, an area may be considered
to be attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
if there are no violations of the NAAQS,
as determined in accordance with 40
CFR 50.9 and Appendix H, based on
three complete, consecutive calendar
years of quality-assured air quality
monitoring data. A violation of the 1hour ozone NAAQS occurs when the
annual average number of expected
daily exceedances is equal to or greater
than 1.05 per year at any monitoring site
in the area or in its immediate
downwind environs. A daily
exceedance occurs at a monitoring site
when the recorded maximum hourly
ozone concentration during a given day
is 0.125 parts per million of air (ppm)
(125 parts per billion of air (ppb)) or
higher. The data must be collected and
quality-assured in accordance with 40
CFR part 58, and recorded in the
Aerometric Information Retrieval
System (AIRS). The monitors used to
support a redesignation to attainment of
the NAAQS should have remained at
the same location for the duration of the
monitoring period required to
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS
(three years for ozone).
The Ohio EPA and the Cabinet have
continued to submit ozone data for all
monitors operated in the CincinnatiHamilton area. Review of the ozone data
contained in AIRS shows that both
States have maintained ozone
monitoring in the area, with complete
quality-assured monitoring data being
supplied to AIRS from the 1996–1998
period, when the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area first monitored attainment of the 1hour ozone NAAQS, through the
present. Our January 24, 2000 proposed
rule (65 FR 3634) documented the lack
of ozone standard violations for the
1996–1998 period. In Table 1, we
summarize the data obtained from AIRS
and demonstrate that the ozone
monitoring data continue to show
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
during the 2002–2004 period. As we
have noted, the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area did not experience a monitored
violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
during the entire 1996–2004 period,
demonstrating attainment of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS in this area.
TABLE 1.—1-HOUR OZONE NAAQS EXCEEDANCES IN THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON, OHIO-KENTUCKY AREA FROM 2002–
2004
Expected 1-hour ozone standard exceedances
Site
County
2002
Hamilton ..........................................................................
Middletown ......................................................................
2400 Clermont .................................................................
11590 Grooms Rd. ..........................................................
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Butler ..................................
Butler ..................................
Clermont .............................
Hamilton .............................
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2003
1.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
15APP1
Annual average
2004
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.3
19900
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—1-HOUR OZONE NAAQS EXCEEDANCES IN THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON, OHIO-KENTUCKY AREA FROM 2002–
2004—Continued
Expected 1-hour ozone standard exceedances
Site
County
2002
6950 Ripple Road ...........................................................
250 William Howard ........................................................
Lebanon 230 Cook Rd ....................................................
Lebanon 416 Southeast Street .......................................
KY 338 ............................................................................
700 Alexandria ................................................................
Covington ........................................................................
Hamilton .............................
Hamilton .............................
Warren ...............................
Warren ...............................
Boone .................................
Campbell ............................
Kenton ................................
2003
2004
0.0
0.0
1.0
....................
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
....................
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
....................
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Annual average
0.0
0.0
**
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
** It is not appropriate to calculate an annual average expected exceedance rate based on a single year of ozone data.
These data have been quality-assured.
These data show that the CincinnatiHamilton area, as a whole, is currently
attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
2. Criteria (2) and (5): The Area Must
Have a Fully Approved SIP Under
Section 110(k); and the Area Must Meet
All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D
Before the Cincinnati area may be
redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS, the State of Ohio must
have fulfilled the applicable
requirements of section 110 and part D
of the Act. We address here the status
of Ohio with regard to these
requirements. Since the Kentucky
portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area
has been redesignated to attainment of
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, we do not
here address the status of the Kentucky
portion of the area. You are referred to
our discussion of these criteria in our
January 24, 2000 proposed rule (65 FR
3634).
The September 4, 1992 Calcagni
memorandum confirms that areas
requesting redesignation to attainment
have to fully adopt rules and programs
that come due prior to the submittal of
a complete redesignation request. See
also 60 FR 12459, 12465–66 (March 7,
1995). (Redesignation of Detroit-Ann
Arbor, MI), 68 FR 15424, 25427 (May
12, 2003) (St. Louis NFR). Sierra Club v.
EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
Furthermore, requirements of the CAA
that come due subsequent to the State’s
submittal of a complete redesignation
request would continue to be applicable
to the area until a redesignation to
attainment is approved, but are not
required as a prerequisite for
redesignation (see section 175A(c) of the
CAA). If the redesignation is
disapproved, the State remains
obligated to fulfill those requirements.
The Court in Wall v. EPA, after
reviewing EPA’s prior action
redesignating Cincinnati, upheld EPA’s
actions with respect to redesignation
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
requirements with the exception of
EPA’s determination that Ohio did not
need to fully adopt all of the RACT rules
of part D, subpart 2, before being
redesignated. In this notice, as
discussed below, we propose to find
that Ohio has submitted these remaining
RACT rules for processing by the EPA,
and that, following their adoption by the
State and final approval as a SIP
revision by the EPA, Ohio has complied
with the RACT requirements of the
CAA.
a. Section 110 Requirements
General SIP requirements are
delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I,
part A of the CAA. These requirements
include, but are not limited to, the
following: Submittal of a SIP that has
been adopted by the State after
reasonable notice and public hearing;
provisions for the establishment and
operation of appropriate apparatus,
methods, systems, and procedures
necessary to monitor ambient air
quality; implementation of a source
permit program; provision for part C,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD), and part D, New Source Review
(NSR) permit programs; criteria for
stationary source emission control
measures, monitoring, and reporting;
provisions for air quality modeling; and
provisions for public and local agency
participation. As noted in our January
24 2000 proposed rule (65 FR 3634), the
Ohio SIP was reviewed to ensure that all
applicable requirements under the CAA
were satisfied through SIP provisions.
We have concluded that Ohio’s SIP
complies with the general SIP
requirements under section 110 of the
CAA. See also EPA’s June 19, 2000 final
rulemaking action.
b. Transport of Ozone Precursors to
Downwind Areas
As noted in our January 24, 2000
proposed action (65 FR 3634), modeling
results using EPA’s Regional Oxidant
Model (ROM) indicate that ozone
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
precursor emissions from various states
west of the Ozone Transport Region
(OTR) in the Northeastern United States
contribute to increases in ozone
concentrations in the OTR. The EPA
issued a SIP call under section
110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA on October 27,
1998 (63 FR 57356) (the NOX SIP call)
requiring the District of Columbia (DC)
and 22 states, including Ohio, to reduce
their NOX emissions in order to reduce
the transport of ozone and ozone
precursors. Ohio submitted applicable
statewide NOX emission control rules as
a requested SIP revision, which the EPA
approved on August 5, 2003 (68 FR
12590). The redesignation of this area to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
does not remove Ohio’s obligation to
implement its NOX emission control
rules. However, the section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a state are not linked
with a particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classification in that
state. EPA believes that the
requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area’s designation and
classification are the relevant measures
to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable,
continue to apply to a state regardless of
the designation of any one particular
area in the state. Thus we do not believe
that these requirements should be
construed to be applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation. This
policy is consistent with EPA’s existing
conformity and oxygenated fuels
requirements, as well as with section
184 ozone transport requirements. See
discussion in the prior Cincinnati
redesignation notice 65 FR 37890 (June
19, 2000); Reading Pennsylvania,
proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR
53174–53176,(October 10, 1996), 62 FR
24826 (May 7, 1997); Cleveland-AkronLorrain, Ohio 61 FR 20458 (May 7,
1996); Tampa, Florida, 60 FR 62748
(December 7, 1995). See also the
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Pittsburgh redesignation 66 FR 50399
(October 19, 2001).
c. Part D General Requirements for
Nonattainment Areas
Before the Cincinnati area can be
redesignated to attainment, Ohio must
have fulfilled the applicable
requirements of part D of the CAA.
Under part D, an area’s ozone
nonattainment classification determines
the requirements to which the area and
the State are subject. Subpart 1 of part
D sets forth the basic nonattainment
requirements applicable to all
nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part
D establishes additional requirements
for ozone nonattainment areas classified
under table 1 of section 181(a) of the
Act. As described in the General
Preamble for the implementation of title
I, specific requirements of subpart 2
may override subpart 1’s general
provisions (57 FR 13501, April 16,
1992). The Cincinnati-Hamilton area
was classified as a moderate ozone
nonattainment area. Therefore, to
qualify for redesignation to attainment,
the State must meet the applicable
requirements of subpart 1 of part D—
specifically sections 172(c) and 176, as
well as the applicable requirements of
subpart 2 of part D of the Act.
d. Section 172(c) Requirements
As noted in our January 24, 2000
proposed action (65 FR 3635), we
determined that the original
redesignation request received from the
Ohio EPA for the Ohio portion of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area was supported
by Ohio’s compliance with the plan
requirements of section 172(c). We
continue to determine that Ohio has met
the plan requirements of section 172(c)
as discussed here.
As noted above, in the January 24,
2000 proposed action, EPA proposed to
find that the requirements for SIP
revisions providing ozone attainment
demonstrations meeting the
requirements of sections 172(c)(1),
182(b)(1), and 182(j) were not applicable
for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area
because the area had attained the ozone
standard based on monitoring data and
because the requirements for attainment
demonstrations can be waived for areas
attaining the ozone standard as
confirmed in the May 10, 1995 Seitz
memorandum. This determination was
finalized in our June 19, 2000 final
rulemaking (65 FR 37879). The Court, in
Wall v. EPA, did not vacate this finding
and it remains in effect. 64 FR 49601
(July 31, 2002).
Since the area has continued to attain
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the
requirements for ozone attainment
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
demonstrations, reasonable further
progress, RACM, and contingency
measures and related requirements have
continued to not be applicable to this
area. For a further discussion of the
basis of this determination and EPA’s
relevant policy, please refer to our
discussions in the June 19, 2000 final
rule (65 FR 37895).
The RFP requirement under section
172(c)(2) of the CAA is defined as
progress that must be made toward
attainment. Section 182(b)(1)(A) sets
forth the specific requirements for RFP
applicable to the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area. On March 14, 1994, Ohio
submitted a RFP plan for the Ohio
portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area.
On January 28, 1998 (63 FR 4188) EPA
approved this RFP plan as meeting the
15 percent RFP VOC emission reduction
requirements of section 182(b)(1)(A). By
meeting the specific RFP requirements
of section 182(b)(1)(A), Ohio and the
Cincinnati area are also meeting the RFP
requirements of section 172(c)(2).
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission
and approval of a comprehensive,
accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions. The Ohio EPA submitted a
1990 base year emissions inventory
under section 182(a)(1) and EPA
approved it on December 7, 1995 (60 FR
62737). Since Ohio has met the more
definitive emissions inventory
requirements of section 182(a)(1), we
have determined that Ohio has also met
the more general emissions inventory
requirements of section 172(c)(3).
Section 172(c)(4) requires the
identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and
modified stationary sources to be
allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5)
requires source permits for the
construction and operation of new and
modified major stationary sources
anywhere in the nonattainment area.
Section 182(b)(5) requires all major new
sources or major source modifications in
a moderate nonattainment area to
achieve offsetting reductions of existing
VOC emissions at a ratio of at least 1.15
to 1.0. The EPA has determined that
areas redesignated to attainment do not
need to comply with the requirement
that a NSR program be approved prior
to redesignation provided that the State
demonstrates maintenance of the
standard without part D NSR in effect.
The rationale for this decision is
described in a October 14, 1994
memorandum from Mary Nichols. See
61 FR 31831, June 21, 1996.
Nonetheless, Ohio’s NSR program was
fully approved by the EPA on January
10, 2003 (68 FR 1366). Ohio’s Federally
delegated PSD program will become
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19901
effective in the Cincinnati area upon
redesignation to attainment.
In accordance with EPA’s
determination of attainment, the
requirement for contingency measures
under section 172(c)(9) is not
applicable.
e. Section 176 Conformity Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federally
supported or funded projects conform to
the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs and
projects developed, funded or approved
under Title 23 U.S.C. of the Federal
Transit Act (‘‘transportation
conformity’’), as well as to all other
Federally supported or funded projects
(‘‘general conformity’’). Section 176
further provides that state conformity
revisions must be consistent with
Federal conformity regulations that the
CAA required the EPA to promulgate.
EPA believes that it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity requirements as
not applying for purposes of evaluating
the redesignation requests under section
107(d). The rationale for this is based on
a combination of two factors. First, the
requirement to submit SIP revisions to
comply with the conformity provisions
of the CAA continues to apply to areas
after redesignation to attainment, since
such areas would be subject to a section
175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA’s
Federal conformity rules require the
performance of conformity analyses in
the absence of Federally approved state
rules. Therefore, because areas are
subject to the conformity requirements
regardless of whether they are
redesignated to attainment and must
implement conformity under Federal
rules if state rules are not yet approved,
EPA believes it is reasonable to view
these requirements as not applying for
purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426,
439 (6th Cir. 2001) upholding this
interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748
(December 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida).
Ohio submitted transportation
conformity regulations as a revision to
the SIP on August 17, 1995. The State
adopted State rules to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 51, subpart
T, as published on November 24, 1993.
EPA conditionally approved the
revision to the SIP on May 16, 1996, (61
FR 24702) effective on July 15, 1996.
The revision was conditionally
approved because the Federal
transportation conformity rule had been
amended twice since the original 1993
publication and the Ohio SIP needed to
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
19902
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
be amended to accommodate the
changes. On October 6, 1999, Ohio EPA
submitted a SIP revision with adopted
State rules to meet the requirements of
40 CFR Part 51, subpart T as published
on August 15, 1997. The revised State
regulations were approved effective July
31, 2000, in a notice published on May
30, 2000, (65 FR 34395).
f. Subpart 2 Section 182 Requirements
The Cincinnati-Hamilton area was
classified as a moderate nonattainment
area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
Therefore, part D, subpart 2, section
182(b) requirements apply. As set forth
in the September 4, 1992 and September
17, 1993 EPA guidance memoranda, the
requirements which came due prior to
Ohio’s request to designate the
Cincinnati area must be fully approved
into the SIP before or at the time EPA
approves the redesignation of the
Cincinnati area to attainment of the 1hour ozone NAAQS. Those
requirements are discussed below.
1. 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory
The 1990 base year emissions
inventory was due for submittal by the
State by November 15, 1992. Ohio EPA
submitted the Cincinnati 1990 base year
VOC and NOX emissions inventory on
March 14, 1994, and EPA approved the
emissions inventory on December 7,
1995 (60 FR 62737).
2. Periodic Emission Inventory Updates
Periodic VOC and NOX emission
inventories were required to be
submitted every three years, beginning
in November 15, 1995. Ohio provided
its most recent estimates of emissions
for the years 1993, 1996, 1999 and 2002
in its July 2, 1999, December 22, 1999,
March 8, 2005 and April 4, 2005
redesignation request submittals. These
emission inventory updates were
discussed in our January 24, 2000
proposed action (65 FR 3638, Tables 2
and 3). A summary of the 1996, 1999
and 2002 emission inventories can also
be found in Tables 2 and 3 of this
action. EPA is proposing to approve
these emission inventory updates as
meeting the section 182(a)(3)(A)
requirement of the CAA for periodic
emission inventory submissions.
3. Emission Statement Requirements
The emission statement SIP revision
was due for submittal by November 15,
1992. The Ohio EPA submitted an
emission statement SIP revision for
Ohio on March 18, 1994, and EPA
approved it on October 13, 1994 (59 FR
51863).
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
4. Fifteen Percent Rate-of-Progress Plan
Requirements
The 15 percent VOC emission
reduction RFP plan was required to be
submitted by November 15, 1993. This
plan requirement was applicable to the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area. The Ohio
EPA submitted the 15 percent RFP plan
on March 14, 1994, and EPA approved
it on January 28, 1998 (63 FR 4188).
5. VOC RACT Requirements
VOC RACT rules for three classes of
VOC sources are required under section
182(b)(2) to be included in the Ohio SIP.
The VOC source categories are: (a) All
VOC sources covered by Control
Technique Guidelines (CTGs) issued
between November 15, 1990 and the
date the Cincinnati area attained the 1hour ozone standard; (b) all VOC
sources covered by a CTG issued prior
to November 15, 1990; and (c) all other
major non-CTG stationary sources in the
Cincinnati area. The EPA approved
Ohio’s VOC RACT rules on April 25,
1996 (61 FR 18255), September 7, 1994
(59 FR 46182), and October 23, 1995 (60
FR 54308). These VOC RACT rules,
however, did not complete Ohio’s
obligation, under the CAA, to adopt
RACT rules for all applicable source
categories and sources.
As noted above, in our June 19, 2000
final rule (65 FR 37879), we determined
that Ohio did not need to fully adopt all
of the RACT rules required by part D of
the CAA for the Cincinnati area to
qualify for a redesignation to attainment
of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The Court,
in Wall v. EPA, concluded that EPA
exceeded its discretion in making this
determination and vacated our approval
of the redesignation of the CincinnatiHamilton area to attainment of the 1hour ozone NAAQS.
Below, we address new RACT rules,
permits-to-install restricting some
sources to VOC emission levels below
RACT applicability levels, and negative
source declarations met to complete
Ohio’s compliance with the RACT
requirements of the CAA. Assuming that
these State rules and negative source
declarations are approved in final, Ohio
will have complied with the RACT
requirements of part D of the CAA,
eliminating the sole basis for the Court’s
decision to vacate our prior approval of
the redesignation of the CincinnatiHamilton area.
6. Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM)
The General Preamble, 57 FR 13560
(April 16, 1992), states that EPA
interprets section 172(c)(1) so that the
RACM requirements are a ‘‘component’’
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of an area’s attainment demonstration.
Thus, since the attainment
demonstration is no longer an
applicable requirement, RACM is no
longer an applicable requirement. EPA
has consistently interpreted this
provision to require only
implementation of potential RACM
measures that could contribute to
reasonable progress or attainment.
General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 (April
16, 1992). Thus, where an area has
already attained the standard, no
additional RACM measures are
required. See prior Cincinnati
redesignation, 65 FR 37883–84 (June 19,
2000); Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley,
Pennsylvania, 66 FR 53096 (October 19,
2001) and St. Louis rulemaking, 68 FR
25428 (May 12, 2003).
7. Stage II Vapor Recovery Requirements
Section 182(b)(3) requires states to
submit State II gasoline vapor recovery
rules no later than November 15, 1992.
The Ohio Stage II rules were submitted
as a SIP revision on June 7, 1993 and on
October 20, 1994. The EPA partially
approved and partially disapproved
Ohio’s SIP revision for implementation
of Stage II (58 FR 52911). As stated in
that rulemaking action, with the
exception of paragraph 3745–21–09
(DDD)(5), EPA considers Ohio’s Stage II
program to fully satisfy the criteria set
forth in a September 17, 1993 EPA
guidance document for such programs
titled ‘‘Enforcement Guidance for Stage
II Vehicle Refueling Control Programs.’’
Only those Stage II provisions
previously approved by EPA are part of
the Cincinnati maintenance plan. The
September 17, 1993 guidance
memorandum states that once onboard
vapor recovery regulations are
promulgated, the Stage II regulations are
no longer applicable for moderate ozone
nonattainment areas. The EPA
promulgated onboard vapor recovery
rules in February 1994. Therefore,
pursuant to section 202(a)(6) of the
CAA, Stage II is no longer required.
Ohio, however, has opted to include
reductions in VOC from the Stage II
program as part of the submitted
maintenance plan and the previously
approved 15 percent RFP plan (63 FR
4188 or 63 FR 67586).
8. Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M)
Requirements
Section 182(b)(4) of the CAA requires
States to submit I/M regulations for
ozone nonattainment areas classified as
moderate and above. Under EPA’s I/M
rule in 40 CFR part 51, States are
required to submit these regulations by
November 15, 1993. Ohio submitted
regulations for an I/M program (E-
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Check) on May 26, 1994, and EPA
approved these rules on April 4, 1995
(60 FR 16989).
As noted below, Ohio EPA has
requested that the E-Check program be
discontinued in the future. Ohio has
demonstrated that the VOC and NOX
emission reductions obtained through
the E-Check program are not needed for
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. Ohio has requested that ECheck, upon termination, be considered
to be a contingency measure in Ohio’s
ozone maintenance plan for the
Cincinnati area. This issue is dealt with
in section VI of this proposed action.
9. NOX Emission Control Requirements
Section 182(f) of the CAA establishes
NOX emission control requirements for
ozone nonattainment areas. It provides
that these emission control
requirements, however, do not apply to
an area if the Administrator determines
that NOX emission reductions would
not contribute to attainment of the
ozone standard. The Administrator
made such a determination for the Ohio
portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton
ozone nonattainment area on July 13,
1995 (60 FR 36060). This NOX emission
control waiver was based on the fact
that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area was
currently not violating the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. On June 19, 2000 (65 FR
37879), we extended the NOX emission
control waiver to the entire CincinnatiHamilton area based on a clean air
determination.
Since the NOX emission control
waiver is approved as a final rule, Ohio
EPA is not required to adopt and
implement NOX emission control
regulations pursuant to section 182(f)
for the Cincinnati area to be
redesignated. Ohio EPA has committed
to adopt NOX RACT rules as a
contingency measure to be considered
and possibly implemented upon a
violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
subsequent to the redesignation of the
Cincinnati area to attainment of the 1hour ozone NAAQS.
g. Conclusions Regarding Criteria (2)
and (5)
EPA concludes that, after Ohio has
adopted the RACT rules reviewed here
and we have approved these RACT rules
as a SIP revision, Ohio and the
Cincinnati area will have satisfied the
requirement that the State and the area
have a fully approved SIP meeting all
applicable requirements under section
110(k), section 110, and part D of the
CAA.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
3. Criterion (3): The Improvement in Air
Quality Must Be Due to Permanent and
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
The improvement in air quality must
be due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from
the SIP, Federal measures, and other
State adopted measures. The
improvement in air quality in the Ohio
portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area
is due to emissions reductions from the
Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions
Control Program (FMVECP), Stage II
gasoline vapor recovery program, VOC
RACT controls, and the partial
implementation of E-Check. Between
1993 and 1996, the VOC emissions in
the Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area were reduced by 6.7
percent. The emission control programs
noted here have been adopted by the
State and have been approved into the
Ohio SIP by the EPA. Based on this
conclusion, it is concluded that Ohio
has complied with Criteria (3). It is
further noted that, subsequent to 1996,
Ohio has continued to implement these
emission controls and has adopted
statewide NOX emission control rules in
compliance with EPA’s NOX SIP call,
further improving the air quality in the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area. See the
documentation of 1990, 1993, and 1996
VOC and NOX emissions for the
Cincinnati area in Tables 2 and 3 of our
January 24, 2000 proposed rule for the
Cincinnati-Hamilton ozone
redesignation (65 FR 3638).
4. Criterion (4): The Area Must Have a
Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
Meeting the Requirements of Section
175A
EPA is proposing to approve the
updated maintenance plan and to
determine that it meets the requirements
of the CAA.
In its January 24, 2000 proposed rule
(65 FR 3630), the EPA documented and
proposed to approve a maintenance
plan for the Ohio portion of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area as meeting the
requirements of section 175A. This
maintenance plan was approved in
EPA’s June 19, 2000 final rule (65 FR
37879). Although the Court, in Wall v.
EPA, vacated EPA’s approval of the
redesignation of the CincinnatiHamilton area due to the lack of VOC
RACT rules in Ohio, the Court upheld
EPA’s approval of Ohio’s ozone
maintenance plan for the Cincinnati
area.
Due to passage of time, Ohio’s original
maintenance demonstration, which
projected maintenance of the ozone
standard through 2010, no longer
satisfies the requirement that the
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19903
maintenance plan demonstrate
maintenance for 10 years after EPA
approval of the ozone redesignation
request. Based on this fact, Ohio EPA
has updated the maintenance plan to
demonstrate maintenance through 2015.
Below we review this updated
maintenance plan.
Please note that besides updating the
maintenance plan to demonstrate
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone
standard through 2015, Ohio EPA has
also revised the maintenance plan to
demonstrate that the 1-hour ozone
standard can be maintained even if the
E-Check program is terminated in the
Cincinnati area. Ohio EPA has also
requested that the E-Check program be
moved to the contingency portion of the
maintenance plan. All other aspects of
the contingency portion of the plan, as
approved on June 19, 2000 remain in
place. See our January 24, 2000
proposed rule (65 FR 3639) for a
discussion of Ohio’s contingency plan.
Also please note that the ozone
maintenance plan approved by EPA on
June 19, 2000 included the adoption of
additional RACT rules as a contingency
measure. Since Ohio is in the process of
adopting the additional RACT rules to
meet the requirements of the CAA, the
consideration of RACT adoption as a
contingency measure is no longer
warranted. Should a need for the
implementation of contingency
measures be subsequently triggered, the
State would have to consider other
contingency measures since this
contingency measure is no longer
available. Even though the State has not
removed this contingency measure from
the maintenance plan, we do not see
this as a basis for disapproving Ohio’s
ozone redesignation request. The
maintenance plan is not corrupted by
this issue since Ohio would be forced to
consider alternate contingency measures
if triggered, and the presence of the
RACT adoption contingency measure in
the maintenance plan does not prevent
Ohio from doing so.
The contingency plan provisions of
the maintenance plan are designed to
promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation.
Section 175A of the Act requires that a
maintenance plan include such
contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure that the State will
promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS that occurs after redesignation.
The contingency measures to be
considered for implementation for the
Cincinnati area are the following:
1. Lower Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)
gasoline;
2. Reformulated gasoline;
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
19904
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
3. Broader geographic coverage of
existing regulations;
4. Application of RACT on sources
covered by new control technology
guidelines issued in response to the
1990 CAA amendments; 2
5. Application of RACT to smaller
existing sources;
6. Implementation of one or more
transportation control measures
sufficient to achieve at least a 0.5
percent reduction in actual area wide
VOC emissions. The transportation
control measures to be considered
would include: (a) Trip reduction
programs, including but not limited to
employer-based transportation
management programs, area wide
rideshare programs, work schedule
changes, and telecommuting; (b) transit
improvements; (c) traffic flow
improvements; and (d) other measures;
7. Alternative fuel programs for fleet
vehicle operations;
8. Controls on consumer products
consistent with those adopted elsewhere
in the United States;
9. VOC offsets for new or modified
major sources;
10. VOC offsets for new or modified
minor sources;
11. Increased ratio of VOC offsets
required for new sources;
12. Requirements of VOC controls on
new minor sources; and
13. E–Check (I/M).3
Consideration and selection of one or
more of the contingency measures will
take place in the event that the NAAQS
is violated after the redesignation of the
Cincinnati area to attainment of the
NAAQS. If a subsequent violation of the
ozone NAAQS occurs after
implementation of the VOC control
measures, NOX RACT will be activated.
As noted in our January 24, 2000
proposed rule (65 FR 3640), the State
commits to implement contingency
measures within 12 months of a
violation of the NAAQS.
Based on our review of the revised
maintenance plan, discussed below, and
Ohio’s revised contingency
commitments, we conclude that Ohio
has complied with Criteria (4). The
revised maintenance plan meets the
requirements of section 175A of the
CAA and complies with the relevant
guidelines of the September 4, 1992
Calcagni policy memorandum.
III. Update of the Ohio Ozone
Maintenance Plan for the Cincinnati
Area
A. How Did EPA Evaluate the
Maintenance Plan Update?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. The
maintenance plan is a SIP revision
which provides for maintenance of the
relevant NAAQS in the area for at least
10 years after redesignation. An EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards memorandum dated
September 4, 1992, provides additional
guidance on the required elements of a
maintenance plan. In this case, the
maintenance plan is only being updated
in terms of the estimated emissions
projections and to add E-Check as a
contingency measure for the Cincinnati
area. The State already has an approved
maintenance plan that includes an
attainment emissions inventory, a
commitment to maintain an ozone
monitoring network, a contingency
plan, and a commitment for continued
attainment verification which was
upheld by the Court. In this SIP
submission, Ohio is updating the
emissions projections which provide for
the maintenance demonstration through
at least 10 years into the future from
redesignation. This is necessary because
of the Court’s decision which vacated
EPA’s original redesignation to
attainment for the Cincinnati area.
The attainment emissions inventory
identifies the emissions level in the area
which is sufficient to attain the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS, and includes emissions
during the time period which had no
monitored violations of the ozone
NAAQS. Maintenance is demonstrated
by showing that future emissions will
not exceed the level established by the
attainment emissions inventory. The
‘‘attainment emissions inventory’’
approach to demonstrating maintenance
was upheld in Wall v. EPA, 426 F. 3d
at 435–37. The 1996 attainment
emissions inventory established in the
prior approved maintenance plan
remains as the approved attainment
inventory. The only change to the
inventory is that on-road mobile source
emissions have been updated by using
MOBILE6. There have been no
violations of the 1-hour ozone standard
over the time period since 1996 and
thus the 1996 attainment emissions
levels remain valid.
Ohio has submitted updated VOC and
NOX emissions projections for the year
2015 and has submitted these
projections as a revision to the SIP. The
Tables below (Table 2 and Table 3)
show the prior approved emissions
levels for point and areas sources and
the mobile source emissions that have
been updated using the MOBILE6
emissions model. Also, the mobile
emissions estimates are calculated
without the benefit of the E-Check
program for 2010 and 2015, as noted in
parentheses in the on-road mobile and
total emissions estimates. The results of
the analysis show that the area is
expected to maintain the air quality
standard for at least 10 years into the
future. Table 2 and Table 3 provide the
VOC and NOX emissions summaries for
the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati area
and demonstrate that the area’s total
VOC and NOX emissions will remain
below attainment levels established for
1996.
TABLE 2.—CINCINNATI, OHIO: VOC MAINTENANCE EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY
[Tons per day]
Year
Source type
1996
Point .........................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................
On-road Mobile ........................................................................
2 This contingency measure becomes moot when
Ohio adopts the RACT rules reviewed here.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
1999
74.9
70.7
82.9
77.0
71.4
70.1
2002
2005
79.2
72.3
60.9
81.4
73.1
45.6
3 It is assumed here that E-Check would not
become a contingency measure until after it is
terminated in the Cincinnati area.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
2010
84.3
74.5
33.0
* (35.1)
2015
88.4
79.5
23.6
* (26.2)
19905
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2.—CINCINNATI, OHIO: VOC MAINTENANCE EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY—Continued
[Tons per day]
Year
Source type
1996
Total ..................................................................................
1999
218.5
2005
212.4
2010
200.1
2015
191.8
191.5
* (193.9)
*
228.5
2002
* (194.1)
Without E-Check program.
TABLE 3.—CINCINNATI, OHIO: NOX MAINTENANCE EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY
[Tons per day]
Year
Source type
1996
1999
2002
2005
Point .........................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................
On-road Mobile ........................................................................
279.0
30.9
133.9
278.6
31.4
130.4
278.3
32.1
116.3
277.6
32.2
87.8
Total ..................................................................................
443.8
440.4
426.7
397.6
2010
277.4
33.8
61.8
* (65.4)
2015
276.0
37.4
35.0
* (39.5)
*Without
373.0
348.4
* (376.6)
* (352.9)
E-Check program.
To demonstrate continued attainment,
the State projected anthropogenic 1996
emissions of VOC and NOX to the years
1999, 2002, 2005, 2010 and 2015. The
results of this analysis show that the
area is expected to maintain the air
quality standard for at least ten years
into the future. In fact, the emissions
projections show that future emissions
will be reduced from 1996 levels.
The emission projections show that
the emissions are not expected to
exceed the level of the base year 1996
inventory during the 10-year
maintenance period. Therefore,
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS continues to be demonstrated.
The On-road Mobile emissions were
also calculated without the E-Check
program to determine if the area could
continue to maintain the 1-hour ozone
standard if the E-Check program were
discontinued. The 2010 VOC emissions
from on-road mobile sources were
calculated by the Ohio-KentuckyIndiana Regional Council of
Governments (OKI) to be 35.1 tpd of
VOC and 65.4 tpd of NOX. In the year
2015, the on-road mobile emissions
were projected to be 26.2 tpd of VOC
and 39.5 tpd of NOX without the ECheck program. These emissions
demonstrate that the area can still
maintain the 1-hour ozone standard
without the E-Check program.
B. How Were the Point and Area
Sources Updated?
The point and area sources were
grown using the same expected growth
rates that were used in the original
approved maintenance plan. The 2010
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
emission estimates were grown to give
the expected emissions in 2015. Area
source estimates in this case include offroad mobile sources, such as
construction equipment. The growth
rates are based on expected population
growth. Any emission reductions from
implementation of RACT on the nonControl Technique Guidelines source
categories, which Ohio is working to
control, are not included in the point
source emission projections. Thus, this
is a worse case emissions projection and
still demonstrates maintenance of the 1hour ozone NAAQS. Some RACT
emission controls will provide
additional VOC emission reductions
and will further support maintenance of
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
C. How Were the Mobile Sources
Updated?
The mobile source emissions cover all
on-road mobile sources such as cars,
trucks, and buses, including transit. The
Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional
Council of Governments (OKI) used the
most recent transportation network
model with the most recent projections
of population and employment to
estimate emissions from the
transportation system. The
transportation network model is
calibrated by using actual ground counts
of vehicles currently on the highways. A
summary of the OKI updates and
calibrations were provided in the Ohio
submittal. OKI estimated the mobile
source emissions for 2015 to be 23.6
tons per day of VOC and 35 tons per day
of NOX. OKI provided the 2015 on-road
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
mobile emissions information to the
Ohio EPA, who in turn summarized the
emissions in the revised maintenance
demonstration and emissions budget
reviewed here. OKI also provided the
2010 and 2015 emissions estimates
without the E-Check program.
D. Does the Updated Maintenance Plan
Reaffirm the Adequacy of the
Maintenance Plan?
The updated maintenance plan
submitted by Ohio has built upon the
existing approved maintenance plan to
extend the time-frame of the plan out to
the year 2015. Ohio has used
methodologies that meet the EPA
guidance for emission inventory
preparation. Additionally, as noted
above, Ohio did not take credit for all
emission reductions which may be
expected in the time-frame of the
maintenance plan, resulting in a
conservative overestimate of future
emissions and a conservative
demonstration of maintenance. For
example, Ohio did not take credit for
the anticipated VOC controls on point
sources which are not yet in place.
These anticipated VOC controls will
provide additional reductions on certain
stationary sources in the Cincinnati area
once the controls are implemented and
are permanent and enforceable.
Ohio has used methods consistent
with the previous approved
maintenance plan. Because the revised
maintenance plan projections for 2015
are below the 1996 attainment year
inventory, the update to the
maintenance plan for Cincinnati shows
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
19906
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
that the maintenance plan is adequate
for maintaining emissions below the
1996 attainment level.
IV. Transportation Conformity
Emission Budgets for the Cincinnati
Area
A. What Are the Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets?
A motor vehicle emissions budget
(MVEB) is the projected level of
controlled emissions from the
transportation sector (mobile sources)
that is estimated in the SIP. The SIP
controls emissions through regulations,
for example, on fuels and exhaust levels
for cars. The emissions budget concept
is further explained in the preamble to
the November 24, 1993, transportation
conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The
preamble also describes how to
establish the motor vehicle emissions
budget in the SIP and how to revise the
emissions budget. The transportation
conformity rule allows the motor
vehicle emissions budget to be changed
as long as the total level of emissions
from all sources remains below the
attainment level. For maintenance plan
submissions, the last year of the
maintenance plan is the budget year for
transportation conformity. The motor
vehicle emissions budgets for the Ohio
portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area,
as submitted by Ohio, are for the 2015
year and are the projected emissions for
the on-road mobile sources. The motor
vehicle emissions budgets, if approved,
will be 26.2 tons per day for VOC, and
39.5 tons per day for NOX for the Ohio
portion (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton,
and Warren Counties) of the CincinnatiHamilton area. These emission budgets,
when approved in final by EPA, will be
used for transportation conformity
determinations.
B. What Is a Safety Margin?
A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference
between the attainment level of
emissions (from all sources) and the
projected level of emissions (from all
sources) in the maintenance plan. The
attainment level of emissions is the
level of emissions during one of the
years in which the area met the NAAQS.
For example: The Cincinnati-Hamilton
area first attained the 1-hour ozone
standard during the 1996–1999 time
period. The State used 1996 as the year
to determine attainment levels of
emissions for the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area. The total emissions from point,
area and mobile sources in 1996 equaled
228.5 tons per day of VOC and 443.8
tons per day of NOX. The Ohio EPA
projected emissions out to the year 2015
and projected a total of 191.5 tons per
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
day of VOC and 348.4 tons per day of
NOX from all sources in the Ohio
portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area.
The safety margin for the Ohio portion
of Cincinnati-Hamilton is calculated to
be the difference between these
amounts, or 37.0 tons per day of VOC
and 95.4 tons per day of NOX. If the ECheck program is eliminated, the safety
margin will be reduced because the total
projected emissions in 2010 and 2015
will be higher.
The emissions are projected to
maintain the area’s air quality consistent
with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The
safety margin is the extra emissions
reduction below the attainment levels
[points] that can be allocated as long as
the total emission levels are maintained
at or below the attainment levels. Ohio
is not requesting allocation of the safety
margins in the submittal. The motor
vehicle emissions budgets for the Ohio
portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area
will be the 2015 emissions estimates for
on-road mobile sources (motor vehicles)
without the E-Check program.
C. How Does This Action Change the
Current Maintenance Plan?
Full approval of Ohio EPA’s submittal
will change the transportation
conformity emissions budgets for
mobile sources. The maintenance plan
is designed to provide for future growth
while still maintaining the ozone air
quality standard. Growth in industries,
population, and traffic is offset with
reductions from cleaner cars and other
emission reduction programs. Through
the maintenance plan, the State and
local agencies can manage and maintain
air quality while providing for growth.
In the submittal, Ohio has updated
the emissions estimates and has
requested to replace the approved 2010
motor vehicle emissions budgets with
new budgets for 2015 so that the
maintenance plan will extend out 10
years past the expected date of
redesignation. The 2015 budgets are
intended to replace the currently
approved 2010 budgets rather than
being in addition to the 2010 budgets,
avoiding coexisting emissions budgets
for two separate years.
D. What Are Subarea Budgets?
Ohio submitted these budgets as
subarea budgets, which are only
applicable to the Ohio portion of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Subarea
budgets allow conformity to be
determined for Ohio and Kentucky
separately. Kentucky currently has
approved 2010 mobile source budgets.
In separate actions, both States (Ohio
and Kentucky) are electing to use
subarea budgets per 40 CFR 93.124(d)
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for the purpose of determining
transportation conformity in the areas
within their individual states. Subarea
budgets still require the CincinnatiHamilton area to conduct transportation
conformity for the entire area (both Ohio
and Kentucky portions). However,
subarea budgets allow transportation
projects in each State to be implemented
if and only if the budget test is met for
that particular State. The new updated
budgets for the Ohio side of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area for 2015 are:
26.2 tons per summer day for VOC; and
39.5 tons per summer day for NOX.
E. Why Is the Request Approvable?
The new 2015 motor vehicle emission
budgets for the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area are approvable because the new
motor vehicle emissions budgets for
NOX and VOC maintain the total
emissions at or below the attainment
year inventory levels as required by the
transportation conformity regulations.
F. What Is the Adequacy and Approval
Process for These Submitted Budgets?
The budgets for the Ohio portion of
the Cincinnati-Hamilton maintenance
plan are being posted to EPA’s
conformity Web site concurrent with
this proposal. The public comment
period will end at the same time as the
public comment period for this
proposed rule. In this case, EPA is
parallel processing the maintenance
plan update and the adequacy process
for the budgets. In this proposed rule,
EPA is proposing to find the budgets
adequate and also proposing to approve
the budgets as part of the maintenance
plan. Because the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area already has an approved
maintenance plan, the budgets need to
be approved and not just found
adequate prior to being used for
transportation conformity purposes.
Therefore, the budgets cannot be used
for transportation conformity until the
maintenance plan update and associated
budgets are approved in a final Federal
Register notice.
If EPA receives adverse written
comments with respect to the proposed
approval of the Cincinnati-Hamilton
emissions budgets, or any other aspect
of our proposed approval of this
updated maintenance plan, we will
respond to the comments on the
emissions budgets in our final action or
proceed with the adequacy process as a
separate action.
Our action on the CincinnatiHamilton emissions budgets will also be
announced on EPA’s conformity Web
site: https://www.epa.gov/oms/traq,
(once there, click on the ‘‘Conformity’’
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
button, then look for ‘‘Adequacy Review
of SIP Submissions for Conformity’’).
V. Volatile Organic Compounds
Emission Control Regulations
Ohio is required to ensure that all
major VOC sources and all VOC sources
that meet the applicability criteria in
any of EPA’s Control Technique
Guideline (CTG) documents in the
Cincinnati ozone nonattainment area are
subject to RACT regulations. Ohio’s
existing VOC RACT regulations cover
all CTG categories and major sources
except those categories for which EPA
established RACT guidance after 1990
and for one additional source category,
bakeries, for which it was determined
there was a major non-CTG source in
the nonattainment area. An analysis of
how this RACT requirement is satisfied
is presented in a category-by-category
basis below. VOC RACT regulations are
required for any facilities that exceed
the applicability criteria specified in the
Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI)
Reactor/Distillation, Wood Furniture
Manufacturing, Ship Building and Ship
Repair and Aerospace Manufacturing
Control Technique Guideline
documents. For the other post-1990
categories and for bakeries, VOC RACT
regulations are required if a facility
including one or more of these source
categories has greater than 100 tons
VOC per year of potential non-CTG VOC
emissions and the facility is not subject
to federally enforceable operating and/
or production restrictions limiting the
facility to less than 100 tons per year of
non-CTG VOC emissions. A description
of these source categories follows.
A. Source Categories Not Requiring New
VOC Regulations
The following VOC source categories
do not require any additional
regulations because, for the CTG
categories, there are no sources that
exceed the CTG applicability criteria
and for any non-CTG categories, there
are either no major sources or any such
sources are subject to federally
enforceable operating and/or production
restrictions limiting the facility to less
than 100 tons per year of non-CTG VOC
emissions.
1. Industrial Cleaning Solvents
On May 23, 2003, the Ohio EPA
submitted to EPA a Negative Declaration
Letter for Industrial Cleaning Solvents.
Ohio EPA has adequately documented
that there are no sources in the Ohio
portion of the Cincinnati ozone
nonattainment area with industrial
cleaning solvent emissions that have
total non-CTG potential emissions of
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
equal to or greater than 100 tons VOC/
year. Non-CTG emissions include
emissions from source categories for
which there is not a CTG document and
unregulated emissions from source
categories covered by a CTG category.
Ohio EPA made a thorough search to
ensure that it considered all sources
with solvent clean-up emissions. This
included looking at the Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual,
the local Yellow Pages, a database
associated with the Ohio EPA
permitting system, as well as several
trade associations and Web sites. Based
on that review, 122 facilities were
identified that are normally associated
with solvent clean-up emissions. None
of these facilities were found to have
solvent clean-up potential emissions of
over 50 TPY and there are no facilities
with solvent cleaning operations that
have combined non-CTG Potential to
Emit (PTE) of 100 TPY or more.
Therefore, Ohio EPA has adequately
documented that there are no major
non-CTG sources with solvent clean-up
emissions and therefore there are no
sources with solvent clean-up emissions
that are subject to RACT.
2. Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
Industry
On May 23, 2003, the Ohio EPA
submitted to EPA a Negative Declaration
Letter for the Ship Building and Ship
Repair Industry. The Ohio EPA has
determined that there are no major
sources (sources with potential
emissions equal to or greater than 25
tons VOC/year for this CTG category) in
the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati ozone
nonattainment area.
Ohio EPA made a thorough search to
determine whether any ship building or
ship repair facilities were located within
the Cincinnati ozone nonattainment
area. This included reviewing the Ohio
EPA air pollution control permitting
system, contacting the local office of the
United States Coast Guard, reviewing
ship building trade association
information identified on the web and,
in addition, the Harris Directory, which
provides SIC information for more than
800,000 companies across the country,
was investigated for those categories
related to ship building and repair.
None of the above sources of
information resulted in the
identification of any ship building and
repair facilities. In addition, staff from
the Hamilton County Department of
Environmental Services confirmed that
there are no military or commercial ship
building and repair operations along the
Ohio River, the only plausible location
for such operations in the Ohio portion
of the non-attainment areas. Therefore,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19907
Ohio EPA has adequately documented
that there are no ship building and
repair facilities located in the Ohio
portion of the Cincinnati ozone nonattainment area.
3. Automobile Refinishing
On May 23, the Ohio EPA submitted
to EPA a Negative Declaration Letter for
Automobile Refinishing. Ohio EPA has
adequately documented that there are
no automobile refinishing (also referred
to as auto body shops) major sources in
the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati ozone
nonattainment area with non-CTG
potential emissions of equal to or greater
than 100 tons VOC/year. Non-CTG
emissions include emissions from
source categories for which there is not
a CTG document and unregulated
emissions from source categories
covered by a CTG category.
In order to determine whether there
were any major automobile refinishing
sources within the Cincinnati
nonattainment area, Ohio EPA searched
the SIC Code Manual for automobile
refinishing in conjunction with the
Harris Directory, the local and business
to business Yellow Pages for automobile
refinishing companies, the Ohio EPA
permitting system, and Ohio EPA’s
Small Business Assistance Program.
After reviewing all of the above sources
of information 142 automobile
refinishing facilities were identified. Of
the 142 facilities, 103 are each subject
to a Permit to Install which limits
potential VOC emissions to less than 25
tons/year. A review of each of the
remaining 39 facilities established that
the potential VOC emissions from each
of them was less than 25 tons VOC/year.
Therefore, Ohio EPA has adequately
documented that there are no major
non-CTG automobile refinishing
facilities and therefore there are no such
facilities that are subject to RACT.
4. Aerospace Manufacturing and
Rework Facilities
On October 14, 2003, the Ohio EPA
submitted to EPA a Negative Declaration
Letter for Aerospace Manufacturing and
Rework Facilities. The Ohio EPA has
determined that there are no major
sources (sources with potential
emissions equal to or greater than 25
tons VOC/year for this source category)
in the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati
ozone nonattainment area.
Ohio EPA made a thorough search to
determine what aerospace
manufacturing and/or rework facilities
were located within the Cincinnati
nonattainment area. Ohio EPA searched
the Ohio EPA permitting system, the
local and business Yellow Pages for
aerospace manufacturing and rework
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
19908
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
facilities, they utilized the web and
found a number of trade associations,
and used the Harris Directory, which
provides SIC information for more than
800,000 companies across the country.
After reviewing all of the above
sources of information, Ohio EPA
identified 22 facilities in the Cincinnati
nonattainment area that are generally
associated with aerospace
manufacturing and rework operations.
These 22 facilities are listed in a table
attached to the October 14, 2003, letter.
In reviewing the status of those 22
facilities, it was determined that 14
facilities do not manufacture or have
rework operations. Two facilities, CTL
Aerospace and Gayston Corporation
have federally enforceable Permits to
Install which limit the allowable VOC
emissions to less than 25 TPY for each
facility. One facility has shut down all
coating operations. The individual files
were reviewed for the remaining 5
facilities and it was determined that the
potential to emit of the VOC emissions
for operations subject to the CTG were
less than 25 TPY. Therefore, Ohio EPA
has adequately documented that there
are no aerospace manufacturing and
rework operations located in the Ohio
portion of the Cincinnati ozone nonattainment area that exceed the
applicability criteria for this CTG
category and therefore there are no such
facilities that are subject to RACT.
5. Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Tanks
On January 27, 2004, the Ohio EPA
submitted to EPA a letter documenting
that there are no volatile organic liquid
(VOL) storage tanks, in the Cincinnati
ozone nonattainment area, at facilities
with the potential to emit over 100 TPY
from all non-CTG sources that do not
have either enforceable operating and
production restrictions limiting actual
VOC emissions to below 100 TPY from
these non-CTG sources or existing
RACT level controls on their VOL
storage tanks. Ohio EPA performed the
following searches to identify all VOL
storage tanks in the Cincinnati ozone
nonattainment area. Ohio EPA checked
the Harris Directory for those SICs
which may have VOL storage tanks.
They also checked the local Yellow and
business Yellow Pages for petroleum,
oils and solvent storage facilities, their
permitting system for storage tanks and
on the web, information was obtained
from several trade associations.
Ohio EPA identified 151 facilities in
the four county Cincinnati ozone
nonattainment area with a total of 1363
storage tanks of various sizes, that
contained materials having a wide range
of vapor pressures. Of those 151
facilities, only 12 had PTE VOC
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
emissions greater than 100 Tons per
year from the facility. Of those 12, 7
have no storage tanks that exceed the
cutoffs (storage tanks greater than
40,000 gallons storing a material with a
vapor pressure greater than 0.5 pounds
per square inch absolute (psia))
requiring control. One facility is subject
to a federally enforceable Permit to
Install limiting facility emissions to less
than 100 tons per year and the storage
tanks over 40,000 gallons at the other
four facilities are subject to either
existing petroleum liquid RACT control
requirements or National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
(NESHAP) regulations with control
requirements at least as stringent as
RACT. Therefore, no additional RACT
control requirements are required for
VOL storage tanks.
6. Lithographic Printing
On July 31, 2003, the Ohio EPA
submitted to EPA a Negative Declaration
Letter for Lithographic Printing. The
Ohio EPA has determined that there are
no major sources (sources with potential
emissions equal to or greater than 100
tons per year for this source category) in
the Cincinnati ozone nonattainment
area.
Ohio EPA made a thorough search to
determine what lithographic printing
facilities were located in the Cincinnati
ozone nonattainment area. Ohio EPA
searched their permitting system, the
local and business Yellow Pages for
Lithographic printing, they utilized the
web and reviewed trade association
information, they used the Small
Business Assistance program, and they
also used the Harris Directory, which
provides SIC information for more than
800,000 companies.
After reviewing the above sources of
information, Ohio EPA determined that
there are seven facilities which perform
web offset lithographic printing. The
potential to emit for three of these
facilities is less than 12 tons VOC per
year. The other four facilities have
federally enforceable Permits to Install
limiting emissions to less than 100 tons
per year for each facility. Therefore,
Ohio EPA has adequately documented
that there are no lithographic printing
facilities in the Cincinnati ozone
nonattainment area that are subject to
RACT regulations.
7. Plastic Parts Coating
On March 31, 2005, the Ohio EPA
submitted to EPA a Negative Declaration
Letter for the coating of Automotive
Plastic Parts. The Ohio EPA has
determined that there are no major
sources (sources with potential
emissions equal to or greater than 100
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
tons per year for this source category) in
the Cincinnati ozone nonattainment
area.
Ohio EPA made a thorough search to
determine what automotive plastic parts
coating facilities were located in the
Cincinnati ozone nonattainment area.
Ohio EPA searched their permitting
system, the local and business Yellow
Pages for automotive plastic parts
coating, they utilized the web and
reviewed trade association information,
they used the small business assistance
program, and they also used the Harris
Directory which provides SIC
information on more than 800,000
companies.
After reviewing the above sources of
information, Ohio EPA determined that
there are three facilities which coat
automotive plastic parts. The potential
to emit for one of these facilities is less
than 10 tons VOC per year and the other
two automotive plastic parts coating
facilities have federally enforceable
Permits to Install limiting emissions to
less than 100 tons per year for each
facility. Therefore, Ohio EPA has
adequately documented that there are
no automotive plastic parts coating
facilities in the Cincinnati ozone
nonattainment area that are subject to
RACT regulations.
B. Source Categories for Which VOC
RACT Regulations Have Been Proposed
On March 8, 2005, Ohio EPA
proposed for parallel processing VOC
regulations for five source categories
that are discussed below. Parallel
processing includes proposed
rulemaking (by EPA) on draft rules
submitted by the State with EPA’s final
rulemaking taking place subsequent to
the State rules being finally adopted.
Subsequent to proposal, Ohio EPA
agreed to make some revisions to these
proposed rules so that they are
consistent with EPA VOC RACT
requirements and therefore approvable.
If Ohio’s final rules are not consistent
with what has been agreed on to ensure
that these rules represent RACT, or if
Ohio makes other substantive changes
to these rules, EPA will not be able to
go final without additional rulemaking.
A discussion of these required changes
is included in the section for each rule.
1. Bakeries
On March 8, 2005, Ohio EPA
submitted draft rule 3745–21–12
‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Commercial Bakery
Oven Facilities’’ and the accompanying
definitions in 37–45–21–01(U). This
draft rule applies to any commercial
bakery oven facility in the Cincinnati
ozone nonattainment area with a
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
potential to emit VOC emissions equal
to or greater than 100 tons per year.
Each bakery oven subject to these
control requirements must install and
operate a VOC emission control system
with an overall control efficiency of at
least 95 percent by weight. A bakery
oven is exempted from this control
requirement if it has annual VOC
emissions of less than 25.0 tons and
average daily VOC emissions of less
than 192 pounds. This is consistent
with the exemption levels that were
approved by EPA in the Maricopa
County (Arizona) bakery rule. This rule
contains a calculation procedure to
determine uncontrolled potential to
emit, a requirement to achieve
compliance within 12 months as well as
compliance testing requirements,
monitoring and inspection requirements
as well as recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. Ohio EPA agreed to delete
the last sentence in the draft definition
of ‘‘Commercial bakery oven facility’’
which improperly exempts
establishments that produce bakery
products primarily for direct sale on the
premises to household consumers and
that utilize only batch bakery ovens.
This rule, with the revised definition, is
consistent with RACT and is therefore
approvable.
2. Batch Processes
On March 8, 2005, Ohio EPA
submitted draft rule 3745–21–14
‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Process Vents in Batch
Operations’’ and the accompanying
definitions in 3745–21–01(W). This
draft rule applies to any batch process
train for a variety of chemical
manufacturing operations at facilities in
the Cincinnati ozone nonattainment
area with over 100 tons per year of
potential VOC emissions. A batch
operation is a non-continuous operation
in which chemicals are added to the
process in discrete intervals as opposed
to on a continuous basis. A batch
process train is a collection of
equipment (e.g., reactors, filters,
distillation columns, extractors,
crystallizers, blend tanks, neutralizer
tanks, digesters, surge tanks and product
separators) configured to produce a
specific product or intermediate by a
batch operation.
Exempted from the VOC control
requirements of this rule are any unit
operation with uncontrolled annual
VOC emissions of less than 500 pounds
per year and any batch process train
containing process vents that have, in
the aggregate, uncontrolled total annual
mass emissions of less than 30,000
pounds per year.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
For those process vents of batch
process trains and unit operations
within batch process trains subject to
the control requirements of this rule,
compliance can be achieved by (1)
reducing uncontrolled VOC emissions
by an overall efficiency of at least 90
percent, or to 20 parts per million
volume, per batch cycle; (2) using a
boiler or process heater to comply with
the above by requiring that the vent
stream be introduced into the flame
zone of the boiler or process heater, (3)
using a flare provided that it meets
Ohio’s approved flare requirements in
3745–21–09(DD)(10)(d). In addition,
suitable recordkeeping, reporting and
test methods have been included.
Compliance with these control
requirements is required within 12
months of the effective date of this rule.
In order to eliminate ambiguity in 3714–
21–14(A)(4), which deals with
compliance deadlines, Ohio EPA agreed
to eliminate the last sentence in 3714–
21–14(A)(4) and to add ‘‘1990’’ after
baseline year in order to specify the year
after which actual emissions could not
have exceeded 100 tons per year of VOC
to make the source eligible for avoiding
applicability to the batch rule by
restricting emissions to less than 100
tons VOC per year by federally
enforceable operating restrictions.
This proposed batch rule is consistent
with EPA VOC RACT guidance and is
approvable provided that the changes to
3714–21–14(A)(4) are made.
3. Industrial Wastewater
On March 8, 2005, Ohio EPA
submitted draft rule 3745–21–16
‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Industrial Wastewater’’
and the accompanying definitions in
3745–21–01(Y). This draft rule applies
to facilities in the Cincinnati ozone
nonattainment area with the potential to
emit over 100 tons VOC per year that
have operations in one of several
industrial categories (such as organic
chemicals, pesticides and
pharmaceutical manufacturing) and that
generate process wastewater.
The proposed industrial wastewater
rule contains the following control
requirements: Each individual drain
system shall be covered and, if vented,
be routed through a closed vent system
to a control device, or each drain shall
be equipped with water seal controls or
a tightly fitting cap or plug, each surface
impoundment that receives, manages or
treats an affected VOC wastewater
stream must be equipped with a cover
and a closed-vent system which routes
the VOC vapors to a control device or
the surface impoundment must be
equipped with a floating flexible
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19909
membrane cover, each oil-water
separator shall be equipped with a fixed
roof and a closed vent system that
routes the vapors to a control device or
a floating roof, each portable container
must be covered, each wastewater tank
shall have a fixed roof, a fixed roof and
a closed-vent system that routes the
VOC vapors to a control device, a fixed
roof and an internal floating roof, or an
external floating roof, and each
treatment process must meet the
applicable requirements described
above along with other requirements
such as venting the gases from the
treatment process to a control device
designed and operated to reduce
wastewater VOC emissions by 90%.
There is also an alternative control
option requiring EPA approval.
There are also inspection and
monitoring requirements, a list of
approved test methods, recordkeeping
requirements and a requirement that
compliance be achieved within 12
months from the effective date of the
rule.
Ohio EPA agreed to make the
following changes to its draft rule:
revise the definition of ‘‘Affected VOC’’
in 3745–21–01(Y)(3) to ‘‘means VOC
with a Henry’s Law Constant greater
than * * *,’’ delete the last sentence in
3745–21–16(A)(4), add ‘‘1990’’ before
‘‘baseline year’’ (for the reason
described in the prior section) and
delete the phrase ‘‘or (D)(8)’’ from 3745–
21–16(D)(1) as (D)(8) is a control option
for treatment processes and was not
intended to be an alternative to the
control requirements in (D)(3) through
(D)(7). This rule was largely based on
the Texas wastewater rule that was
approved by EPA. We believe that the
rule, with the modifications identified is
approvable as RACT.
4. SOCMI Reactors/Distillation Units
On March 8, 2005, Ohio EPA
submitted draft rule 3745–21–13
‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Reactors and
Distillation Units Employed in SOCMI
Chemical Production’’ and the
accompanying definitions in 3745–21–
01(V). This rule applies to any reactor
or distillation unit within a process unit
that produces a SOCMI chemical and
that is located in the Cincinnati ozone
nonattainment area. Any reactor or
distillation unit in a process unit with
a design capacity of less than 1,100 tons
per year of chemicals produced is
exempt from the control requirements of
this rule. This rule also exempts any
reactor or distillation unit that is
regulated by either of two of Ohio’s
existing VOC RACT rules or three new
source performance standards, each of
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
19910
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
which have federally enforceable
control requirements that are at least as
stringent as the control requirements for
this SOCMI rule. Each process vent is
classified according to characteristics of
the process vent stream (VOC
concentration, flow rate, and the total
resource effectiveness (TRE)) prior to a
control device. The TRE is a costeffectiveness tool established by EPA to
determine if the annual cost of
controlling a gas stream is reasonable
based on the emission reduction that
can be achieved by a combustion-type
control device.
One of the following controls is
required for those process vents for
which control is required, based upon
the above: Discharge to a properly
operating flare, discharge to the flame
zone of a boiler or process heater with
a heat input capacity of over 150 million
BTU per hour, discharge to a boiler or
process heater as the primary fuel or
with the primary fuel, discharge to a
control device that reduces VOC
emissions by at least 98% or emits VOC
at a concentration less than 20 ppmv,
achieve and maintain a TRE index value
greater than 1.0 (for which no additional
control is warranted), or discharge to an
existing combustion device with a 90%
reduction efficiency.
Compliance is required within 12
months of the effective date of the rule.
This rule also includes compliance
testing, TRE determination testing and
monitoring requirements, as well as
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
Ohio EPA agreed to revise 3714–21–
13(A)(2) and add a new (A)(3) that
specifies that for those sources that are
exempt from the requirements of the
SOCMI rule because they are subject to
another rule, they must be subject to the
limits of that rule. Ohio EPA also agreed
to delete (F)(1)(f) which allows emission
reduction credit for a recovery device
that is part of the process.
This proposed VOC rule is consistent
with EPA RACT guidance and is
approvable provided that the indicated
changes are made.
The five compliance options for wood
finishing operations are: (1) A VOC
content limit of 0.8 pound VOC per
pound of solids for topcoats only, (2)
VOC content limits for topcoats and
sealers, wherein topcoats are subject to
1.8 pounds VOC per gallon of solids or
2.0 pounds VOC per gallon of solids for
an acid-cured alkyd amino conversion
topcoat, and sealers are subject to 1.9
pounds VOC per gallon of solids or 2.3
pounds VOC per gallon of solids for an
acid-cured alkyd amino sealer, (3) a
VOC emission control system for
topcoats and/or sealers that is
equivalent to the VOC content limits of
the above options, (4) daily VOC
emissions limits for topcoats, and (5)
daily VOC emissions limit for topcoats,
sealers, and other finishing materials.
The compliance options associated with
daily VOC emissions are based on a
daily summation of actual VOC
emissions not exceeding 90% of the
daily summation of VOC emissions
allowed under compliance options (1)
or (2). This rule also allows 30-day
averaging for dip coaters.
This rule also requires a work practice
implementation plan that develops
environmentally desirable work
practices including: An operator
training course, a leak inspection and
maintenance plan, a cleaning and
washoff accounting system, spray booth
cleaning restrictions, storage
requirements for coatings, coating
application requirements, line cleaning
and spray gun cleaning procedures and
emission control practices from washoff
operations.
Compliance is required 12 months
after the effective date of this rule,
which also includes compliance testing
and monitoring requirements for a VOC
emission control system, as well as
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. This rule is consistent
with VOC RACT guidance and
approvable provided that Ohio EPA
revises its viscosity provisions, as
agreed, so that viscosity cannot, by
itself, be used to establish the VOC
content for dip coaters.
5. Wood Furniture Manufacturing
VI. Changes in the Ohio SIP To Support
the Removal of Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Programs in the
Cincinnati and Dayton Areas
On March 8, 2005, Ohio EPA
submitted draft rule 3745–21–15
‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations’’ and the
accompanying definitions in 3745–21–
01(X). This draft rule applies to any
facility that has wood furniture
manufacturing operations with a
potential to emit 25 tons VOC per year
and is located in the Cincinnati ozone
nonattainment area.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
A. What Changes to the Ohio SIP Have
Been Submitted To Support the
Removal of the I/M Programs in the
Cincinnati and Dayton Areas?
Ohio EPA submitted a revision to the
Cincinnati and Dayton-Springfield
portions of the Ohio SIP on April 4,
2005. This revision requests that the I/
M programs in Ohio, also known as the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E-Check programs, be discontinued in
the Cincinnati and Dayton-Springfield
areas by December 31, 2005. The
revision also requests that the E-Check
program regulations be moved from the
active control measures portion of the
SIP to the contingency measures portion
of the Cincinnati and DaytonSpringfield 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plans.
The Cincinnati and DaytonSpringfield areas are required to
implement ‘‘basic’’ I/M programs under
section 182(b)(4) of the Act because they
were originally designated as moderate
1-hour nonattainment areas. In order to
maximize NOX, VOC and CO emissions
reductions from the I/M program, Ohio
EPA chose to implement an ‘‘enhanced’’
program in those areas and has
incorporated an on-board diagnostic
(OBD) component into the programs.
EPA fully approved Ohio’s I/M
programs on April 4, 1995 (60 FR
16989). The E-Check programs began
operation on January 2, 1996, to help
meet nonattainment area requirements
for the ozone NAAQS effective at the
time. As noted in other portions of this
action, both the Cincinnati and DaytonSpringfield areas have either been
redesignated to attainment for the 1hour ozone standard, or are in the
process of doing so. Both areas have
developed maintenance plans showing
how they plan on maintaining the 1hour ozone standard. In its submittal,
Ohio EPA is modifying these
maintenance plans showing that the 1hour standard can be maintained
through 2015 in the Cincinnati area
without use of emission reductions
associated with the E-Check program
beyond December 31, 2005 and through
2005 for Dayton-Springfield.
B. What Authorities Apply To Removing
the Cincinnati and Dayton I/M Programs
From Active Status and Moving Them to
Contingency Measures in the Ohio SIP?
Section 110(l) of the Act states that
‘‘The Administrator shall not approve a
revision of a plan if the revision would
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (as defined
in section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of this Act.’’ The states’
obligation to demonstrate attainment of
each of the NAAQS is considered as
‘‘any applicable requirement(s)
concerning attainment.’’ A
demonstration is necessary to show that
this revision will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS, including the relatively new 8hour ozone and PM2.5 standards, or any
other requirement of the Act.
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
19911
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
With respect to the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS, the Dayton-Springfield area
has met the standard and was
redesignated to attainment on May 5,
1995 (60 FR 22289). EPA is proposing
approval of the Cincinnati-Hamilton
redesignation request in today’s action.
As noted elsewhere, EPA has approved
1-hour ozone maintenance plans for
both areas. These approved
maintenance plans show that control
measures in place in these areas are
sufficient for overall emissions to
remain beneath the attainment level of
emissions until the end of the
maintenance period, in these cases 2005
for Dayton-Springfield and 2010 for
Cincinnati-Hamilton. In accordance
with the Act and EPA redesignation
guidance, however, states are free to
adjust control strategies in the
maintenance plan as long as they can
demonstrate that overall emissions
remain below the attainment level of
emissions. By making such a
demonstration, control programs may be
discontinued and removed from the SIP.
At a minimum, however, section
175A(d) of the Act requires that
contingency measures in the
maintenance plan include all measures
in the SIP for the area before that area
was redesignated to attainment. Since
the E-Check program was in the SIP
prior to redesignation to attainment for
ozone, the E-Check program must be
listed in the contingency portion of the
1-hour ozone maintenance plan as
required by section 175A(d). As part of
this action, Ohio EPA is making a
demonstration showing continued
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone
standard without taking credit for
reductions from the Dayton-Springfield
and Cincinnati E-Check programs.
Provisions in EPA’s I/M rule, set forth
in 40 CFR section 51.372(c) provide
additional requirements that apply to
the Cincinnati-Hamilton and DaytonSpringfield E-Check program situation.
These provisions were published
January 5, 1995, at 60 FR 1735. The
provisions indicate that certain areas
seeking redesignation may submit only
the authority for an I/M program rather
than an implemented program in
satisfaction of the applicable I/M
requirements. Under these I/M rule
provisions, a basic I/M area which has
been redesignated to attainment for the
1-hour ozone NAAQS can convert the
I/M program to a contingency measure
as part of the area’s 1-hour ozone
maintenance plan, notwithstanding the
new antibacksliding provisions in EPA’s
recent 8-hour ozone implementation
rule. Ohio has retained the necessary
legal authority to meet this requirement,
and has requested that E-Check be
converted to a contingency measure in
both areas. A basic I/M area which is
designated nonattainment for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, and which is not
required to have an I/M program based
on its 8-hour ozone designation,
continues to have the option to move its
I/M program to a contingency measure
as long as the 8-hour nonattainment area
can demonstrate that doing so will not
interfere with its ability to comply with
any NAAQS or any other applicable
CAA requirement pursuant to section
110(l) of the Act. For further details on
the application of 8-hour ozone antibacksliding provisions to basic I/M
programs in 1-hour ozone maintenance
areas, please refer to the May 12, 2004,
EPA Memorandum from Tom Helms,
Group Leader, Ozone Policy and
Strategies Group, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, and Leila H.
Cook, Group Leader, State Measures and
Conformity Group, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, to the
Air Program Managers, the subject of
which is ‘‘1-Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plans Containing Basic I/M Programs.’’
A copy of this memorandum may be
obtained at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
oarpg/t1pgm.html or on RME, EPA’s
electronic public docket and comment
system at https://docket.epa.gov/
rmepub/.
C. What Is EPA’s Analysis of Ohio’s
Demonstrations of No Interference With
the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS in the
Cincinnati and Dayton Areas?
The April 4, 2005 Ohio SIP revision
seeking removal of the E-Check program
includes an evaluation for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS of the potential emission
impacts that would result from removal
of the Cincinnati and DaytonSpringfield E-Check program as an
active control measure in the SIP. For
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the submittal
provides VOC and NOX emission
inventory data for the Ohio portion of
the Cincinnati-Hamilton CMSA
nonattainment area for 1996, the
attainment year for the area, and
projected emission inventories for 2005,
2010, and 2015. The projected mobile
source emission inventories for 2010,
and 2015 do not include emission
reduction credits from the operation of
the E-Check Program after 2005. As
shown in Tables 4 and 5 below,
projected, total VOC and NOX emissions
for 2005, 2010, and 2015 for the Ohio
portion of the Cincinnati 1-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Area all fall below the
emissions levels in 1996, when the area
met the 1-hour standard. These VOC
and NOX emission totals include
emissions from the point, area, mobile,
and non-road source categories. The
estimates are also quite conservative as
they do not include emissions
reductions from certain control
programs, namely the RACT rules for
VOC and NOX reductions achieved from
implementing regulations to meet EPA’s
NOX SIP call. Thus, the area
demonstrates continued maintenance of
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS without the ECheck Program in the CincinnatiHamilton area.
TABLE 4.—TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS FOR THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON 1-HOUR OZONE MAINTENANCE AREA
Year
VOC (in tpsd)
1990
1996
2005
2010
2015
Total VOC for Maintenance Area ......................................................................
VOC Increase w/o E-Check Program ................................................................
265.7
..................
228.5
..................
200.1
..................
191.8
2.1
191.5
2.6
Total VOC for Maintenance w/o E-Check ..................................................
265.7
228.5
200.1
193.9
194.1
TABLE 5.—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON 1-HOUR OZONE MAINTENANCE AREA
Year
NOX (in tpsd)
1990
Total NOX for Maintenance Area .......................................................................
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
440.5
1996
2005
443.8
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
397.6
2010
373.0
2015
348.4
19912
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5.—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON 1-HOUR OZONE MAINTENANCE AREA—Continued
Year
NOX (in tpsd)
1990
1996
2005
NOX Increase w/o E-Check Program ................................................................
..................
..................
..................
3.6
4.5
Total NOX for Maintenance w/o E-Check ..................................................
440.5
443.8
397.6
376.6
352.9
Also for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
the submittal provides VOC and NOX
emission inventory data for the DaytonSpringfield CMSA (i.e., Clark, Greene,
and Montgomery Counties) for 1990, the
attainment year for the area, and revised
projected emission inventories for 1996,
2000, and 2005. The revised projected
mobile source emission inventories for
2005 do not include emission reduction
credits from the operation of the ECheck Program after 2004. As shown in
Tables 6 and 7 below, projected, total
VOC and NOX emissions for 2005 for
the Dayton-Springfield 1-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Area all fall below the
emissions levels in 1990, the attainment
year for the area. These VOC and NOX
emission totals include emissions from
the point, area, mobile, and non-road
source categories. The estimates are also
quite conservative as they do not
include emissions reductions from
certain control programs, namely the
RACT rules for VOC and NOX
reductions achieved from implementing
regulations to meet EPA’s NOX SIP call.
There are 2 issues with the 1-hour
ozone demonstration for the Dayton area
that must be addressed in order for us
to approve the maintenance plan
changes for Dayton. In the April 4, 2005
submittal, the Ohio EPA provides
emissions estimates for the Dayton area
for 1996, 2000, and 2005. In order to
show that the area can maintain the
ozone standard for an additional ten
years, the Ohio EPA must estimate area
wide emissions for Dayton for the year
2015. Additionally, the state must
recalculate the attainment year mobile
source emissions, in Dayton’s case for
2010
2015
the year 1990, using EPA’s Mobile 6
model. This will provide the necessary
information needed to show whether
the area can stay within the attainment
level of emissions in the future without
implementing the E-Check program.
If Ohio EPA provides this
information, we are proposing to find
that Ohio has demonstrated that
termination of the I/M program in the
Dayton area will not interfere with
attainment and maintenance of the 1hour ozone NAAQS in this area
provided that Ohio extends such
demonstration through 2015 or later and
corrects the demonstration to use
MOBILE 6 estimates for mobile source
emission factors for the attainment year
(1990) and provides a revised
demonstration to the EPA prior to our
final rulemaking.
TABLE 6.—TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS FOR THE DAYTON-SPRINGFIELD 1-HOUR OZONE MAINTENANCE AREA
Year
VOC (in tpsd)
1990
1996
2000
2005
Total VOC for Maintenance Area ............................................................................................
VOC Increase w/o E-Check Program ......................................................................................
301.1
..................
270.6
..................
282.9
..................
290.9
1.2
Total VOC for Maintenance w/o E-Check ........................................................................
301.1
270.6
282.9
292.1
TABLE 7.—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS FOR THE DAYTON-SPRINGFIELD 1-HOUR OZONE MAINTENANCE AREA
Year
NOX (in tpsd)
1990
1996
2000
Total NOX for Maintenance Area ..........................................................................................
NOX Increase w/o E-Check Program ....................................................................................
129.6
..................
115.6
..................
117.1
..................
111.1
0.95
Total NOX for Maintenance w/o E-Check ......................................................................
129.6
115.6
117.1
112.05
D. Has Ohio Demonstrated That
Terminating the I/M Programs in the
Cincinnati and Dayton Areas Will Not
Interfere With the Expeditious
Attainment and Maintenance of the 8Hour Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter
NAAQS?
In addition to demonstrating that
movement of the E-Check program to a
contingency measure would not
interfere with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
Ohio also needs to demonstrate that
removing the E-Check Program as an
active control measure from the SIP in
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
the Cincinnati-Hamilton and DaytonSpringfield areas would not interfere
with the new 8-hour ozone and fine
particulate matter standards. In a future
action, Ohio will be submitting
supplemental information providing a
demonstration that removal of the ECheck Program will not interfere with
attainment of the 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS. At this time, EPA is
proposing to approve the State’s
demonstration that E-Check is not
needed for purposes of the 1-hour ozone
standard, but the State must submit, and
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2005
EPA must approve, a demonstration on
8-hour ozone and PM2.5 prior to
program discontinuation.
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
19913
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
VII. Conclusions on the Redesignation
of the Cincinnati Area to Attainment of
the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the
Removal of the Vehicle I/M Programs in
the Cincinnati and Dayton Areas
A. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding
Ohio’s Request for the Redesignation of
the Cincinnati Area to Attainment of the
1-Hour Ozone NAAQS?
Based on the discussions of
compliance with the redesignation
criteria above, rulemakings concerning
the redesignation of the Cincinnati area
and on the fact that Ohio is in the
process of completing the adoption of
VOC RACT regulations meeting the
RACT requirements of the CAA, we
conclude that Ohio and the Cincinnati
area will comply with the criteria for
redesignation to attainment of the 1hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve this redesignation
if Ohio meets the conditions noted in
this proposed action. The process of
redesignation for the 1-hour ozone
standard must be completed prior to the
revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard
on June 15, 2005.
We also conclude that the current
ozone air quality in the CincinnatiHamilton area supports continuation of
the determination of attainment for the
Cincinnati area and our conclusion that
certain planning requirements of the
CAA are not applicable to this area.
B. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding
Ohio’s Ozone Maintenance Plan for the
Cincinnati Area?
Based on our review of the
maintenance plan proposed by the
State, including a demonstration of
maintenance through 2015 and a revised
contingency plan that includes an I/M
program as a contingency measure
following the termination of the
program in the Cincinnati area, we
conclude that Ohio has proposed a
maintenance plan that meets the
requirements of section 175A of the
CAA. Assuming that Ohio adopts this
maintenance plan as proposed, we
propose to approve this maintenance
plan as a SIP revision. If the State
substantially revises the maintenance
plan from the version proposed by the
State and reviewed here, this will result
in the need for additional proposed
rulemaking on maintenance plan.
C. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding
the VOC and NOX Emission Inventories
Used To Support Ohio’s Ozone
Redesignation Request?
Based on emission estimates
submitted to support Ohio’s ozone
redesignation requests for the Cincinnati
area, we conclude that Ohio has met the
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
requirements of section 182(a)(3)(A) of
the CAA for periodic emissions
inventory updates. We are proposing to
approve the 1996, 1999, and 2002
emission estimates summarized in this
proposed rule for the Cincinnati area as
the updated periodic emission
inventory estimates.
D. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding
Ohio’s Draft RACT Rules?
For five source categories, we
conclude that RACT regulations
proposed by the State are approvable
provided that the State makes the rule
changes noted above in the final
adopted versions of the rules. The five
source categories covered by these draft
rules are: Bakeries; chemical
manufacturing batch processes;
industrial wastewater treatment; SOCMI
reactors and distillation units; and wood
furniture manufacturing. Significant
changes in the RACT rules from the
versions reviewed here, other than the
changes negotiated between the State
and the EPA and described in this
notice, will result in the need for
additional proposed rulemaking on
these RACT regulations.
We conclude that the following VOC
source categories do not require any
additional regulations: Industrial
solvent cleaning; shipbuilding and ship
repair industry; automobile refinishing;
aerospace manufacturing and rework
facilities; volatile organic liquid storage
tanks; lithographic printing; and plastic
parts coating. For these source
categories, either there are no sources
with VOC emissions exceeding the
cutoffs for major sources under EPA and
CAA RACT policy, or the existing
sources have Federally enforceable
operating and/or production restrictions
limiting the facility emissions to levels
below major source size cutoffs.
Assuming the State adopts RACT
rules that we can approve in final, we
conclude that the State will comply in
full with the RACT requirements of the
CAA.
E. What Are Our Conclusions
Concerning the Elimination of I/M
Programs in the Cincinnati and Dayton
Areas?
We are proposing that the State has
demonstrated that eliminating the I/M
programs in the Cincinnati-Hamilton
and Dayton-Springfield areas will not
interfere with the attainment and
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. We are proposing such
conclusion provided that Ohio submits
additional documentation to the EPA
prior to our final rulemaking on this
issue that extends the DaytonSpringfield emission estimates through
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2015 or later and corrects the
demonstration to use MOBILE 6
estimates for mobile source emissions
for the attainment year (1990). This
demonstration does not complete the
State’s demonstration obligations under
section 110(l) of the CAA. The State
must also demonstrate that the
elimination of these emission reduction
programs will not interfere with the
attainment and maintenance of the 8hour ozone NAAQS and the fine
particulate NAAQS and with the
attainment and maintenance of other air
quality standards and criteria of the
CAA. Ohio EPA has committed to
complete this demonstration before I/M
program discontinuation in the
Cincinnati and Dayton-Springfield
areas.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Executive Order 12866
Planning and Review
Regulatory
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 13211 Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy
action,’’ this action is also not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed action merely proposes
to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this
proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule proposes to approve
pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required
by state law, it does not contain any
unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4).
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
19914
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 72 / Friday, April 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Executive Order 13175 Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed rule also does not have
tribal implications because it will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 13132 Federalism
This action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the
national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.
Executive Order 13045 Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This proposed rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not impose
an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: April 7, 2005.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 05–7509 Filed 4–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 70 and 71
[OAR–2003–0180; FRL–7900–7]
RIN 2060–AM63
Request for Comment on Potentially
Inadequate Monitoring in Clean Air Act
Applicable Requirements and on
Methods To Improve Such Monitoring;
Notice of Public Comment Period
Extension
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR); notice of public
comment period extension.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing that
the closing date of the public comment
period for the advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPR) ‘‘Request
for Comment on Potentially Inadequate
Monitoring in Clean Air Act Applicable
Requirements and on Methods To
Improve Such Monitoring’’ (70 FR 7905,
February 16, 2005) is extended sixty
days from April 18, 2005 until June 17,
2005. After publishing this ANPR, the
EPA received a letter dated March 11,
2005, from Environmental Integrity
Project and several other environmental
and citizens’ organizations requesting a
120-day extension of the public
comment period to allow the public to
provide more meaningful comments,
given the broad scope of the ANPR. The
EPA believes it is reasonable to extend
the public comment period for sixty
days and is hereby granting the
requested extension for that period.
DATES: Comments must be submitted by
June 17, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. OAR–2003–
0180, by one of the following methods:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Web site: https://
www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s
electronic public docket and comment
system, is EPA’s preferred method for
receiving comments. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: Send electronic mail (email) to EPA Docket Center at a-and-rdocket@epamail.epa.gov.
• Fax: Send faxes to EPA Docket
Center at (202) 566–1741.
• Air and Radiation Docket, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation
Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA West Building, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket’s
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. OAR–2003–0180. The
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.epa.gov/edocket, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be confidential business
information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA
EDOCKET and the Federal
regulations.gov Web sites are
‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through
EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information
E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM
15APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 72 (Friday, April 15, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19895-19914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-7509]
[[Page 19895]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[R05-OAR-2005-OH-0004; FRL-7899-9]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans and
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio;
Redesignation of Cincinnati to Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard;
Removal of Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs for the
Cincinnati and Dayton Areas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The State of Ohio has requested the EPA to parallel process an
ozone redesignation request and a number of revisions to Ohio's air
quality control plan. We are proposing to determine that the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard for the
entire period of 1996-2004 based on 1-hour ozone monitoring data
demonstrating attainment of the standard during that period. As a
result, certain attainment demonstration requirements, along with
certain other related requirements of part D of title I of the Clean
Air Act, are not applicable to the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-
Hamilton area. We are proposing to approve Ohio's request to
redesignate the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). We are proposing to approve Ohio's revision of the 1-hour
ozone maintenance plan, previously approved by us on June 19, 2000, for
the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. This update to the
plan extends the timeframe for demonstrating continued maintenance of
the 1-hour ozone standard through 2015, and demonstrates that the 1-
hour ozone standard may be maintained in this area even with the
termination of the vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program in
the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. We are notifying the
public that we believe that the revised motor vehicle emissions budgets
for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX) for the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area
are adequate for conformity purposes and are approvable as part of the
revised ozone maintenance plan for this area. We are proposing to
approve new VOC emission control regulations for various sources in the
Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area and to approve negative
source declarations for some source categories for this area as long as
the State meets certain conditions. We are proposing approval of
periodic emission inventories for the Cincinnati area.
Additionally, we are proposing to find that Ohio has demonstrated
that termination of the I/M program in the Ohio portion of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area will not interfere with the attainment and
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in this area. Similarly, we are
proposing to find that Ohio has demonstrated that termination of the I/
M program in the Dayton area will not interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in this area provided that the
State meets certain conditions.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 16, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in
EDocket (RME) ID No. R05-OAR-2005-OH-0004, by one of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. RME, EPA's
electronic public docket and comments system, is EPA's preferred method
for receiving comments. Once in the system, select ``quick search,''
then key in the appropriate RME docket identification number. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
Fax: (312) 886-5824.
Mail: You may send written comments to: John Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: John Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th Floor,
Chicago, Illinois. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to RME ID No. R05-OAR-2005-OH-
0004. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless a comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through RME, regulations.gov,
or e-mail. The EPA RME Web site and the Federal regulations.gov Web
site are ``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through RME or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comments and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comments due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification or
replacement of comments, EPA may not be able to consider your comments.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and should be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket for this proposed
rule are listed in the RME index at https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/
index.jsp. Although listed in the index, some information is not
publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in RME or in hard copy at Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 18th floor, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please telephone
Edward Doty at (312) 886-6057 or contact him through his e-mail,
doty.edward@epa.gov, before visiting the Region 5 office).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6057, Doty.Edward@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the following, whenever ``we,'' ``us,''
or ``our'' are used, we mean the United States Environmental Protection
Agency.
Table of Contents
I. General Information
[[Page 19896]]
A. Does This Proposed Action Apply to me?
B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related
Information?
C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?
D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare my Comments for EPA?
II. Proposed Redesignation of the Cincinnati Area to Attainment of
the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS
A. What Is the Background for This Proposed Action?
B. What Are the Redesignation Review Criteria?
C. Has the State of Ohio and the Cincinnati Area Complied With
the Redesignation Review Criteria?
1. Criterion (1): The Area Must Be Attaining the 1-Hour Ozone
NAAQS
2. Criteria (2) and (5): The Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP
Under Section 110(k); and the Area Must Meet All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D
a. Section 110 Requirements
b. Transport of Ozone Precursors to Downwind Areas
c. Part D General Requirements for Nonattainment Areas
d. Section 172(c) Requirements
e. Section 176 Conformity Requirements
f. Subpart 2 Section 182 Requirements
1. 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory
2. Periodic Emission Inventory Updates
3. Emission Statement Requirements
4. Fifteen Percent Rate-Of-Progress Plan Requirements
5. VOC RACT Requirements
6. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)
7. Stage II Vapor Recovery Requirements
8. Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Requirements
9. NOX Emission Control Requirements
g. Conclusions Regarding Criteria (2) and (5)
3. Criterion (3): The Improvement in Air Quality Must Be Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
4. Criterion (4): The Area Must Have a Fully Approved
Maintenance Plan Meeting the Requirements of Section 175A
III. Update of the Ohio Ozone Maintenance Plan for the Cincinnati
Area
A. How did EPA Evaluate the Maintenance Plan Update?
B. How Were the Point and Area Sources Updated?
C. How Were the Mobile Sources Updated?
D. Does the Updated Maintenance Plan Reaffirm the Adequacy of
the Maintenance Plan?
IV. Transportation Conformity Emission Budgets for the Cincinnati
Area
A. What Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets?
B. What Is a Safety Margin?
C. How Does This Action Change the Current Maintenance Plan?
D. What Are Subarea Budgets?
E. Why Is the Request Approvable?
F. What Is the Adequacy and Approval Process for These Submitted
Budgets?
V. Volatile Organic Compounds Emission Control Regulations
A. Source Categories Not Requiring New VOC Regulations
1. Industrial Cleaning Solvents
2. Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Industry
3. Automobile Refinishing
4. Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities
5. Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Tanks
6. Lithographic Printing
7. Plastic Parts Coating
B. Source Categories for Which VOC RACT Regulations Have Been
Proposed
1. Bakeries
2. Batch Processes
3. Industrial Wastewater
4. SOCMI Reactors/Distillation Units
5. Wood Furniture Manufacturing
VI. Changes in the Ohio SIP To Support the Removal of Vehicle
Inspection And Maintenance Programs in the Cincinnati and Dayton
Areas
A. What Changes in the Ohio SIP Have Been Submitted To Support
the Removal of the I/M Programs in the Cincinnati and Dayton Areas?
B. What Authorities Apply To Removing the Cincinnati and Dayton
I/M Programs From Active Status and Moving Them to Contingency
Measures in the Ohio SIP?
C. What Is EPA's Analysis of Ohio's Demonstrations of No
Interference With the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS in the Cincinnati and
Dayton Areas?
D. Has Ohio Demonstrated That Terminating the I/M Programs in
the Cincinnati and Dayton Areas Will Not Interfere With the
Expeditious Attainment and Maintenance of the 8-Hour Ozone and Fine
Particulate Matter NAAQS?
VII. Conclusions on the Redesignation of the Cincinnati Area to
Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS And The Removal Of the Vehicle
I/M Programs In The Cincinnati and Dayton Areas
A. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding Ohio's Request for the
Redesignation of the Cincinnati Area to Attainment of the 1-Hour
Ozone NAAQS?
B. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding Ohio's Ozone Maintenance
Plan for the Cincinnati Area?
C. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding the VOC and NOX
Emission Inventories Used To Support Ohio's Ozone Redesignation
Request?
D. What Are Our Conclusions Regarding Ohio's Draft RACT Rules?
E. What Are Our Conclusions Concerning the Elimination of I/M
Programs in the Cincinnati and Dayton Areas?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. Does This Proposed Action Apply to Me?
This proposed action pertains to the ground level ozone programs in
place in the Cincinnati (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren
Counties) and Dayton (Clark, Greene, Miami, and Montgomery Counties)
areas. If you own or operate a VOC or NOX emissions source
in the Cincinnati area or live in the Cincinnati area, this proposed
action may impact or apply to you. This proposed action may also apply
to or impact you if you live in the Dayton area. Finally, this proposed
action may impact you if you are involved in mobile source or
transportation planning or implementation in the Cincinnati or Dayton
areas. This action has impacts on pollution sources in these Counties,
including industrial and mobile sources of air pollution.
B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
1. The Regional Office has established an electronic public
rulemaking file available for inspection at RME ID No. R05-OAR-2005-OH-
0004, and a hard copy file which is available for inspection at the
Regional Office. The official public file consists of the documents
specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received,
and other information related to this action. Although a part of the
official docket, the public rulemaking file does not include CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The
official public rulemaking file is the collection of materials that is
available for public viewing at the Air Programs Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the regulations.gov Web site located at https://
www.regulations.gov, where you can find, review, and submit comments on
Federal rules that have been published in the Federal Register, the
Government's legal newspaper, and that are open for comment.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing at the EPA Regional Office,
as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing
copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in
the version of the comment that is placed in
[[Page 19897]]
the official public rulemaking file. The entire printed comment,
including the copyrighted material, will be available at the Regional
Office for public inspection.
C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate rulemaking identification number by including the text
``Public comment on proposed rulemaking Region 5 Air Docket `R05-OAR-
2005-OH-0004' '' in the subject line on the first page of your comment.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through RME,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and identify electronically within the file(s) on the disk or CD
ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedure set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject, heading, Federal Register date and page number);
b. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number;
c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your recommended changes;
d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used;
e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, please explain how
you arrived at your estimates in sufficient detail to allow for them to
be reproduced;
f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives;
g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats; and
h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified in this proposed rule.
II. Proposed Redesignation of the Cincinnati Area to Attainment of the
1-Hour Ozone NAAQS
A. What Is the Background for This Proposed Action?
In accordance with section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
as amended in 1977, EPA designated all counties in the Cincinnati-
Hamilton area (the Ohio portion of this area includes Butler, Clermont,
Hamilton, and Warren Counties, and the Kentucky portion of this area
includes Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties) as an ozone
nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in March 1978 (43 FR
8962). On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), pursuant to section
107(d)(4)(A) of the CAA as amended in 1990, EPA designated the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area based
on monitored violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during the 1987-1989
period.
From 1996 through 1998, air quality monitors located in Ohio and
Kentucky recorded three years of complete, quality-assured ambient
ozone monitoring data in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area that did not
violate the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ Thus, the area was eligible for
consideration of a redesignation to attainment of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. As noted below, this area has continued to monitor attainment of
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS from the 1996-1998 period through the present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1-hour ozone NAAQS is violated when the annual average
expected number of daily peak 1-hour ozone concentrations equaling
or exceeding 0.125 parts per million (ppm) (125 parts per billion
(ppb)) is 1.05 or greater over a three-year period at any monitoring
site in the area of interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1999, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) and
the Commonwealth of Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Cabinet (Cabinet) submitted separate requests for the
redesignation of the State-specific portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA received a request
from Ohio EPA on July 2, 1999 to redesignate the Cincinnati area as an
attainment/maintenance area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Ohio EPA
submitted additional supporting information on August 16, 1999, and
completed its redesignation request by submitting a summary of public
hearing results and comments on December 22, 1999. The Cabinet
submitted a prehearing redesignation request on October 28, 1999, and
requested that the EPA parallel process this submittal. The Cabinet
completed its redesignation request, including an adopted ozone
maintenance plan and public hearing information, in a submittal to the
EPA on December 13, 1999.
On January 24, 2000 (65 FR 3630), EPA proposed approval of the Ohio
and Kentucky ozone redesignation requests. This rulemaking also
proposed to determine that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area had attained
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by its extended attainment data, and proposed to
approve an exemption for the area from NOX emission control
requirements contained in section 182(f) of the CAA. EPA issued a final
rulemaking (65 FR 37879, June 19, 2000), effective July 5, 2000,
determining that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area had attained the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS and approving the Ohio and Kentucky ozone redesignation
requests, including the States' plans for maintaining the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS in their respective portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, as
well as their NOX exemption requests.
On August 17, 2000, two Ohio residents and the Ohio chapter of the
Sierra Club petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th
Circuit (Court) for review of EPA's final rule on the States' ozone
redesignation requests for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. The
petitioners urged the Court to find that the EPA had erred in a number
of respects in approving the redesignation requests. In its September
11, 2001 decision in this case, the Court upheld EPA's actions with
respect to all requirements for redesignation that related to Kentucky.
The Court also rejected the petitioners' challenges with respect to
EPA's approval of the Ohio redesignation request, with the sole
exception of EPA's finding that it could approve Ohio's redesignation
request before Ohio had fully adopted all of the VOC emission control
rules needed to comply with the RACT requirements of part D, subpart 2
of the CAA. Specifically, the Court rejected the petitioners'
challenges to, and upheld EPA's approvals of the Ohio and Kentucky
ozone maintenance plans and EPA's conclusions with respect to
transportation conformity requirements.
[[Page 19898]]
The Court concluded that EPA exceeded its discretion by determining
that Ohio did not need to fully adopt all of the RACT rules required by
part D, subpart 2 of the CAA. The Court vacated EPA's action in
redesignating the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS and ``remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.'' See Wall v. EPA (265 F.3d 436, 6th Circuit 2001).
On February 12, 2002 (67 FR 6411), in a direct final rule in
response to the Court's findings, the EPA took action to reinstate
EPA's redesignation to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the
Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. This rulemaking
action was withdrawn on April 8, 2002 (67 FR 16646), as the result of
the submittal of a public comment on the direct final rule. The
reinstatement of the attainment designation for the Kentucky portion of
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area was subsequently completed through a final
rule on July 31, 2002 (67 FR 49600).
On March 12, 2002 (67 FR 11041), through a technical amendment to
its June 19, 2000 final rule, the EPA revised the ozone designation of
the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to nonattainment of
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS with a classification of moderate nonattainment.
The technical amendment of the original final rule became effective on
April 11, 2002. The final rule technical amendment, coupled with EPA's
July 31, 2002 final rule, created separate designations for the Ohio
and Kentucky portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area with regard to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The Kentucky portion of the area
is designated as attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, while the Ohio
portion of the area continues to be a nonattainment area. As noted
elsewhere in this notice, today's proposed action applies only to the
Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area (only to the Cincinnati
area).
On March 10, 2005, the Ohio EPA submitted a new redesignation
request and ozone maintenance plan revision for the Cincinnati area.
This request notes that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area has monitored
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS continuously from the 1996-1999
period through the present. This submittal also includes VOC emission
control rules that Ohio was preparing to adopt to comply with the RACT
requirements of the Clean Air Act. This submittal notes that Ohio is
scheduling a public hearing on the redesignation request, maintenance
plan, and VOC RACT rules, and requests EPA to parallel process these
submittal elements.
On April 4, 2005, the Ohio EPA submitted additional information
including, a negative source declaration for plastic parts coating, and
a demonstration that terminating the vehicle I/M programs in the
Cincinnati and Dayton areas will not interfere with the attainment and
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in these areas. Ohio EPA proposes
to revise the ozone maintenance plans for these areas to move the I/M
programs to the contingency measure portions of the maintenance plans.
This submittal further revises the ozone maintenance demonstrations for
these areas and revises mobile source emission budgets to reflect the
increases in mobile source VOC and NOX emissions that will
result when the I/M programs are terminated in these areas. Ohio EPA
requests the EPA to rule on the air quality impacts of removing these
emission control programs, and commits to completing analyses in
compliance with section 110(l) of the CAA to demonstrate that dropping
these emission reduction programs will not interfere with attainment of
other air quality standards and air quality control requirements
covered by the CAA. Other than removing the emission impacts of the I/M
programs from the maintenance plans' emission projections and moving
the I/M programs to the contingency measures portions of the Cincinnati
and Dayton maintenance plans, Ohio EPA requests that the remainder of
the Cincinnati and Dayton maintenance plans remain the same as those
previously approved by the EPA.
B. What Are the Redesignation Review Criteria?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment of a NAAQS. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA allows for redesignation of an area to attainment provided
that: (1) The Administrator of the EPA determines that the area has
attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved
the applicable state implementation plan for the area under section
110(k) of the CAA; (3) the Administrator determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP,
applicable Federal air pollution control regulations, and other
permanent and enforceable emission reductions; (4) the Administrator
has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the
requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the State containing
the area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section
110 and part D of the CAA.
EPA provided guidance on redesignations for the 1-hour ozone
standard in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of
the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and
supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA
provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in
documents including the following:
``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to
Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
``Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation of Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T.
Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or
After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;
``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting
Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors,
Regions 1-10, November 30, 1993.
``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
[[Page 19899]]
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.
C. Has the State of Ohio and the Cincinnati Area Complied With the
Redesignation Review Criteria?
We believe that Ohio has demonstrated that the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard and has demonstrated that
the Ohio portion of this area has met all of the applicable section
107(d)(3)(E) redesignation criteria as discussed below.
1. Criterion (1): The Area Must Be Attaining the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS
In its June 19, 2000 rulemaking, EPA issued a final rule
determining that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area had attained the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS. 65 FR 37879. While the Court, in Wall v. EPA, vacated
EPA's action redesignating the area to attainment, it did not vacate
EPA's determination of attainment for the entire area. Therefore, the
determination remains intact and in effect. See EPA's final rule
reinstating the redesignation of the Kentucky portion of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area. 67 FR 49600 (July 31, 2002). As a result of
the determination of attainment, EPA also determined that certain
attainment demonstration requirements, along with certain other related
requirements of part D of title I of the CAA are not applicable to the
area. See 65 FR 37883-3884. See Memorandum of John Seitz, ``Reasonable
Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements
for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard,'' dated May 10, 1995. EPA has interpreted the
provisions of subparts 1 and 2 of part D of title I of the CAA so as
not to require the submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions concerning attainment demonstrations, Reasonably Available
Control Measures (RACM), Reasonable Further Progress (RFP), or sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) contingency measures, and other related
requirements for so long as an area is attaining the relevant NAAQS.
EPA explained its rationale in its prior rulemakings on the Cincinnati
area, as well as in other rulemaking actions. See for example 61 FR
20458 (May 7, 1996) Cleveland-Akron-Lorain), 66 FR 53094 (October 19,
2001) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania); 60 FR 36723 (July 18,
1995) (Salt Lake and Davis Counties, Utah), 68 FR 4847,4747, 4751, 4855
(January 30, 2003), 68 FR 25418 (May 12, 2003 (St. Louis, Missouri), 60
FR 37366 (July 20, 1995), 61 FR 31832-33 (Grand Rapids, Michigan). The
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has upheld this
interpretation, Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F. 3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996), and
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has also affirmed
EPA's redesignation actions based on this interpretation. Sierra Club
v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
As a result of EPA's determination of attainment, certain
attainment demonstration requirements, section 172(c)(1), section
182(b)(1), 182(j), the RACM requirement for reasonable further
progress, and the requirement for contingency measures under sections
172(c)(9) are not applicable as long as the Cincinnati-Hamilton area
continues to attain the NAAQS.
We propose to find that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area has continued
to attain the 1-hour ozone standard and we propose to approve the
redesignation request submitted by Ohio for the Cincinnati area as
meeting this requirement. Complete, quality-assured ambient monitoring
data for the 2002-2004 ozone seasons (April through October, when the
highest ozone concentrations are expected to occur in this area)
demonstrate that the 1-hour ozone NAAQS continues to be attained in
this area. In fact, based on monitoring data, the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area has been attaining the 1-hour ozone standard continuously from the
1996-1998 period though 2004.
For ozone, an area may be considered to be attaining the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS if there are no violations of the NAAQS, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and Appendix H, based on three complete,
consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring
data. A violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS occurs when the annual
average number of expected daily exceedances is equal to or greater
than 1.05 per year at any monitoring site in the area or in its
immediate downwind environs. A daily exceedance occurs at a monitoring
site when the recorded maximum hourly ozone concentration during a
given day is 0.125 parts per million of air (ppm) (125 parts per
billion of air (ppb)) or higher. The data must be collected and
quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). The monitors used to
support a redesignation to attainment of the NAAQS should have remained
at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required
to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS (three years for ozone).
The Ohio EPA and the Cabinet have continued to submit ozone data
for all monitors operated in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Review of
the ozone data contained in AIRS shows that both States have maintained
ozone monitoring in the area, with complete quality-assured monitoring
data being supplied to AIRS from the 1996-1998 period, when the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area first monitored attainment of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS, through the present. Our January 24, 2000 proposed rule (65 FR
3634) documented the lack of ozone standard violations for the 1996-
1998 period. In Table 1, we summarize the data obtained from AIRS and
demonstrate that the ozone monitoring data continue to show attainment
of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2002-2004 period. As we have
noted, the Cincinnati-Hamilton area did not experience a monitored
violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during the entire 1996-2004 period,
demonstrating attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in this area.
Table 1.--1-Hour Ozone NAAQS Exceedances in the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky Area From 2002-2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected 1-hour ozone standard exceedances
---------------------------------------------------
Site County Annual
2002 2003 2004 average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamilton............................ Butler................ 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Middletown.......................... Butler................ 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3
2400 Clermont....................... Clermont.............. 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7
11590 Grooms Rd..................... Hamilton.............. 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
[[Page 19900]]
6950 Ripple Road.................... Hamilton.............. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
250 William Howard.................. Hamilton.............. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lebanon 230 Cook Rd................. Warren................ 1.0 ........... ........... **
Lebanon 416 Southeast Street........ Warren................ ........... 1.0 0.0 0.5
KY 338.............................. Boone................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
700 Alexandria...................... Campbell.............. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Covington........................... Kenton................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** It is not appropriate to calculate an annual average expected exceedance rate based on a single year of ozone
data.
These data have been quality-assured. These data show that the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area, as a whole, is currently attaining the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS.
2. Criteria (2) and (5): The Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP Under
Section 110(k); and the Area Must Meet All Applicable Requirements
Under Section 110 and Part D
Before the Cincinnati area may be redesignated to attainment of the
1-hour ozone NAAQS, the State of Ohio must have fulfilled the
applicable requirements of section 110 and part D of the Act. We
address here the status of Ohio with regard to these requirements.
Since the Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area has been
redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, we do not here
address the status of the Kentucky portion of the area. You are
referred to our discussion of these criteria in our January 24, 2000
proposed rule (65 FR 3634).
The September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum confirms that areas
requesting redesignation to attainment have to fully adopt rules and
programs that come due prior to the submittal of a complete
redesignation request. See also 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995).
(Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI), 68 FR 15424, 25427 (May 12,
2003) (St. Louis NFR). Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004). Furthermore, requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to
the State's submittal of a complete redesignation request would
continue to be applicable to the area until a redesignation to
attainment is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite for
redesignation (see section 175A(c) of the CAA). If the redesignation is
disapproved, the State remains obligated to fulfill those requirements.
The Court in Wall v. EPA, after reviewing EPA's prior action
redesignating Cincinnati, upheld EPA's actions with respect to
redesignation requirements with the exception of EPA's determination
that Ohio did not need to fully adopt all of the RACT rules of part D,
subpart 2, before being redesignated. In this notice, as discussed
below, we propose to find that Ohio has submitted these remaining RACT
rules for processing by the EPA, and that, following their adoption by
the State and final approval as a SIP revision by the EPA, Ohio has
complied with the RACT requirements of the CAA.
a. Section 110 Requirements
General SIP requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of
title I, part A of the CAA. These requirements include, but are not
limited to, the following: Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by
the State after reasonable notice and public hearing; provisions for
the establishment and operation of appropriate apparatus, methods,
systems, and procedures necessary to monitor ambient air quality;
implementation of a source permit program; provision for part C,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), and part D, New Source
Review (NSR) permit programs; criteria for stationary source emission
control measures, monitoring, and reporting; provisions for air quality
modeling; and provisions for public and local agency participation. As
noted in our January 24 2000 proposed rule (65 FR 3634), the Ohio SIP
was reviewed to ensure that all applicable requirements under the CAA
were satisfied through SIP provisions. We have concluded that Ohio's
SIP complies with the general SIP requirements under section 110 of the
CAA. See also EPA's June 19, 2000 final rulemaking action.
b. Transport of Ozone Precursors to Downwind Areas
As noted in our January 24, 2000 proposed action (65 FR 3634),
modeling results using EPA's Regional Oxidant Model (ROM) indicate that
ozone precursor emissions from various states west of the Ozone
Transport Region (OTR) in the Northeastern United States contribute to
increases in ozone concentrations in the OTR. The EPA issued a SIP call
under section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA on October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356)
(the NOX SIP call) requiring the District of Columbia (DC)
and 22 states, including Ohio, to reduce their NOX emissions
in order to reduce the transport of ozone and ozone precursors. Ohio
submitted applicable statewide NOX emission control rules as
a requested SIP revision, which the EPA approved on August 5, 2003 (68
FR 12590). The redesignation of this area to attainment of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS does not remove Ohio's obligation to implement its
NOX emission control rules. However, the section
110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA
believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment
area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to
evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP
submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state
regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state.
Thus we do not believe that these requirements should be construed to
be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. This policy
is consistent with EPA's existing conformity and oxygenated fuels
requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements.
See discussion in the prior Cincinnati redesignation notice 65 FR 37890
(June 19, 2000); Reading Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings
(61 FR 53174-53176,( October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24826 (May 7, 1997);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, Ohio 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996); Tampa,
Florida, 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995). See also the
[[Page 19901]]
Pittsburgh redesignation 66 FR 50399 (October 19, 2001).
c. Part D General Requirements for Nonattainment Areas
Before the Cincinnati area can be redesignated to attainment, Ohio
must have fulfilled the applicable requirements of part D of the CAA.
Under part D, an area's ozone nonattainment classification determines
the requirements to which the area and the State are subject. Subpart 1
of part D sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to
all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part D establishes additional
requirements for ozone nonattainment areas classified under table 1 of
section 181(a) of the Act. As described in the General Preamble for the
implementation of title I, specific requirements of subpart 2 may
override subpart 1's general provisions (57 FR 13501, April 16, 1992).
The Cincinnati-Hamilton area was classified as a moderate ozone
nonattainment area. Therefore, to qualify for redesignation to
attainment, the State must meet the applicable requirements of subpart
1 of part D--specifically sections 172(c) and 176, as well as the
applicable requirements of subpart 2 of part D of the Act.
d. Section 172(c) Requirements
As noted in our January 24, 2000 proposed action (65 FR 3635), we
determined that the original redesignation request received from the
Ohio EPA for the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area was
supported by Ohio's compliance with the plan requirements of section
172(c). We continue to determine that Ohio has met the plan
requirements of section 172(c) as discussed here.
As noted above, in the January 24, 2000 proposed action, EPA
proposed to find that the requirements for SIP revisions providing
ozone attainment demonstrations meeting the requirements of sections
172(c)(1), 182(b)(1), and 182(j) were not applicable for the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area because the area had attained the ozone
standard based on monitoring data and because the requirements for
attainment demonstrations can be waived for areas attaining the ozone
standard as confirmed in the May 10, 1995 Seitz memorandum. This
determination was finalized in our June 19, 2000 final rulemaking (65
FR 37879). The Court, in Wall v. EPA, did not vacate this finding and
it remains in effect. 64 FR 49601 (July 31, 2002).
Since the area has continued to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the
requirements for ozone attainment demonstrations, reasonable further
progress, RACM, and contingency measures and related requirements have
continued to not be applicable to this area. For a further discussion
of the basis of this determination and EPA's relevant policy, please
refer to our discussions in the June 19, 2000 final rule (65 FR 37895).
The RFP requirement under section 172(c)(2) of the CAA is defined
as progress that must be made toward attainment. Section 182(b)(1)(A)
sets forth the specific requirements for RFP applicable to the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area. On March 14, 1994, Ohio submitted a RFP plan
for the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. On January 28,
1998 (63 FR 4188) EPA approved this RFP plan as meeting the 15 percent
RFP VOC emission reduction requirements of section 182(b)(1)(A). By
meeting the specific RFP requirements of section 182(b)(1)(A), Ohio and
the Cincinnati area are also meeting the RFP requirements of section
172(c)(2).
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. The
Ohio EPA submitted a 1990 base year emissions inventory under section
182(a)(1) and EPA approved it on December 7, 1995 (60 FR 62737). Since
Ohio has met the more definitive emissions inventory requirements of
section 182(a)(1), we have determined that Ohio has also met the more
general emissions inventory requirements of section 172(c)(3).
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources to be
allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for
the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary
sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. Section 182(b)(5) requires
all major new sources or major source modifications in a moderate
nonattainment area to achieve offsetting reductions of existing VOC
emissions at a ratio of at least 1.15 to 1.0. The EPA has determined
that areas redesignated to attainment do not need to comply with the
requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation
provided that the State demonstrates maintenance of the standard
without part D NSR in effect. The rationale for this decision is
described in a October 14, 1994 memorandum from Mary Nichols. See 61 FR
31831, June 21, 1996. Nonetheless, Ohio's NSR program was fully
approved by the EPA on January 10, 2003 (68 FR 1366). Ohio's Federally
delegated PSD program will become effective in the Cincinnati area upon
redesignation to attainment.
In accordance with EPA's determination of attainment, the
requirement for contingency measures under section 172(c)(9) is not
applicable.
e. Section 176 Conformity Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,
programs and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23
U.S.C. of the Federal Transit Act (``transportation conformity''), as
well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (``general
conformity''). Section 176 further provides that state conformity
revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations that
the CAA required the EPA to promulgate.
EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation requests under section 107(d). The rationale for this is
based on a combination of two factors. First, the requirement to submit
SIP revisions to comply with the conformity provisions of the CAA
continues to apply to areas after redesignation to attainment, since
such areas would be subject to a section 175A maintenance plan. Second,
EPA's Federal conformity rules require the performance of conformity
analyses in the absence of Federally approved state rules. Therefore,
because areas are subject to the conformity requirements regardless of
whether they are redesignated to attainment and must implement
conformity under Federal rules if state rules are not yet approved, EPA
believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as not applying
for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA,
265 F. 3d 426, 439 (6th Cir. 2001) upholding this interpretation. See
also 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida).
Ohio submitted transportation conformity regulations as a revision
to the SIP on August 17, 1995. The State adopted State rules to meet
the requirements of 40 CFR Part 51, subpart T, as published on November
24, 1993. EPA conditionally approved the revision to the SIP on May 16,
1996, (61 FR 24702) effective on July 15, 1996. The revision was
conditionally approved because the Federal transportation conformity
rule had been amended twice since the original 1993 publication and the
Ohio SIP needed to
[[Page 19902]]
be amended to accommodate the changes. On October 6, 1999, Ohio EPA
submitted a SIP revision with adopted State rules to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 51, subpart T as published on August 15,
1997. The revised State regulations were approved effective July 31,
2000, in a notice published on May 30, 2000, (65 FR 34395).
f. Subpart 2 Section 182 Requirements
The Cincinnati-Hamilton area was classified as a moderate
nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, part D,
subpart 2, section 182(b) requirements apply. As set forth in the
September 4, 1992 and September 17, 1993 EPA guidance memoranda, the
requirements which came due prior to Ohio's request to designate the
Cincinnati area must be fully approved into the SIP before or at the
time EPA approves the redesignation of the Cincinnati area to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Those requirements are discussed
below.
1. 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory
The 1990 base year emissions inventory was due for submittal by the
State by November 15, 1992. Ohio EPA submitted the Cincinnati 1990 base
year VOC and NOX emissions inventory on March 14, 1994, and
EPA approved the emissions inventory on December 7, 1995 (60 FR 62737).
2. Periodic Emission Inventory Updates
Periodic VOC and NOX emission inventories were required
to be submitted every three years, beginning in November 15, 1995. Ohio
provided its most recent estimates of emissions for the years 1993,
1996, 1999 and 2002 in its July 2, 1999, December 22, 1999, March 8,
2005 and April 4, 2005 redesignation request submittals. These emission
inventory updates were discussed in our January 24, 2000 proposed
action (65 FR 3638, Tables 2 and 3). A summary of the 1996, 1999 and
2002 emission inventories can also be found in Tables 2 and 3 of this
action. EPA is proposing to approve these emission inventory updates as
meeting the section 182(a)(3)(A) requirement of the CAA for periodic
emission inventory submissions.
3. Emission Statement Requirements
The emission statement SIP revision was due for submittal by
November 15, 1992. The Ohio EPA submitted an emission statement SIP
revision for Ohio on March 18, 1994, and EPA approved it on October 13,
1994 (59 FR 51863).
4. Fifteen Percent Rate-of-Progress Plan Requirements
The 15 percent VOC emission reduction RFP plan was required to be
submitted by November 15, 1993. This plan requirement was applicable to
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. The Ohio EPA submitted the 15 percent RFP
plan on March 14, 1994, and EPA approved it on January 28, 1998 (63 FR
4188).
5. VOC RACT Requirements
VOC RACT rules for three classes of VOC sources are required under
section 182(b)(2) to be included in the Ohio SIP. The VOC source
categories are: (a) All VOC sources covered by Control Technique
Guidelines (CTGs) issued between November 15, 1990 and the date the
Cincinnati area attained the 1-hour ozone standard; (b) all VOC sources
covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990; and (c) all other
major non-CTG stationary sources in the Cincinnati area. The EPA
approved Ohio's VOC RACT rules on April 25, 1996 (61 FR 18255),
September 7, 1994 (59 FR 46182), and October 23, 1995 (60 FR 54308).
These VOC RACT rules, however, did not complete Ohio's obligation,
under the CAA, to adopt RACT rules for all applicable source categories
and sources.
As noted above, in our June 19, 2000 final rule (65 FR 37879), we
determined that Ohio did not need to fully adopt all of the RACT rules
required by part D of the CAA for the Cincinnati area to qualify for a
redesignation to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The Court, in
Wall v. EPA, concluded that EPA exceeded its discretion in making this
determination and vacated our approval of the redesignation of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
Below, we address new RACT rules, permits-to-install restricting
some sources to VOC emission levels below RACT applicability levels,
and negative source declarations met to complete Ohio's compliance with
the RACT requirements of the CAA. Assuming that these State rules and
negative source declarations are approved in final, Ohio will have
complied with the RACT requirements of part D of the CAA, eliminating
the sole basis for the Court's decision to vacate our prior approval of
the redesignation of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area.
6. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)
The General Preamble, 57 FR 13560 (April 16, 1992), states that EPA
interprets section 172(c)(1) so that the RACM requirements are a
``component'' of an area's attainment demonstration. Thus, since the
attainment demonstration is no longer an applicable requirement, RACM
is no longer an applicable requirement. EPA has consistently
interpreted this provision to require only implementation of potential
RACM measures that could contribute to reasonable progress or
attainment. General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). Thus, where
an area has already attained the standard, no additional RACM measures
are required. See prior Cincinnati redesignation, 65 FR 37883-84 (June
19, 2000); Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 66 FR 53096 (October
19, 2001) and St. Louis rulemaking, 68 FR 25428 (May 12, 2003).
7. Stage II Vapor Recovery Requirements
Section 182(b)(3) requires states to submit State II gasoline vapor
recovery rules no later than November 15, 1992. The Ohio Stage II rules
were submitted as a SIP revision on June 7, 1993 and on October 20,
1994. The EPA partially approved and partially disapproved Ohio's SIP
revision for implementation of Stage II (58 FR 52911). As stated in
that rulemaking action, with the exception of paragraph 3745-21-09
(DDD)(5), EPA considers Ohio's Stage II program to fully satisfy the
criteria set forth in a September 17, 1993 EPA guidance document for
such programs titled ``Enforcement Guidance for Stage II Vehicle
Refueling Control Programs.''
Only those Stage II provisions previously approved by EPA are part
of the Cincinnati maintenance plan. The September 17, 1993 guidance
memorandum states that once onboard vapor recovery regulations are
promulgated, the Stage II regulations are no longer applicable for
moderate ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA promulgated onboard vapor
recovery rules in February 1994. Therefore, pursuant to section
202(a)(6) of the CAA, Stage II is no longer required. Ohio, however,
has opted to include reductions in VOC from the Stage II program as
part of the submitted maintenance plan and the previously approved 15
percent RFP plan (63 FR 4188 or 63 FR 67586).
8. Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Requirements
Section 182(b)(4) of the CAA requires States to submit I/M
regulations for ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate and
above. Under EPA's I/M rule in 40 CFR part 51, States are required to
submit these regulations by November 15, 1993. Ohio submitted
regulations for an I/M program (E-
[[Page 19903]]
Check) on May 26, 1994, and EPA approved these rules on April 4, 1995
(60 FR 16989).
As noted below, Ohio EPA has requested that the E-Check program be
discontinued in the future. Ohio has demonstrated that the VOC and
NOX emission reductions obtained through the E-Check program
are not needed for maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Ohio has
requested that E-Check, upon termination, be considered to be a
contingency measure in Ohio's ozone maintenance plan for the Cincinnati
area. This issue is dealt with in section VI of this proposed action.
9. NOX Emission Control Requirements
Section 182(f) of the CAA establishes NOX emission
control requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. It provides that
these emission control requirements, however, do not apply to an area
if the Administrator determines that NOX emission reductions
would not contribute to attainment of the ozone standard. The
Administrator made such a determination for the Ohio portion of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton ozone nonattainment area on July 13, 1995 (60 FR
36060). This NOX emission control waiver was based on the
fact that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area was currently not violating the
1-hour ozone NAAQS. On June 19, 2000 (65 FR 37879), we extended the
NOX emission control waiver to the entire Cincinnati-
Hamilton area based on a clean air determination.
Since the NOX emission control waiver is approved as a
final rule, Ohio EPA is not required to adopt and implement
NOX emission control regulations pursuant to section 182(f)
for the Cincinnati area to be redesignated. Ohio EPA has committed to
adopt NOX RACT rules as a contingency measure to be
considered and possibly implemented upon a violation of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS subsequent to the redesignation of the Cincinnati area to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
g. Conclusions Regarding Criteria (2) and (5)
EPA concludes that, after Ohio has adopted the RACT rules reviewed
here and we have approved these RACT rules as a SIP revision, Ohio and
the Cincinnati area will have satisfied the requirement that the State
and the area have a fully approved SIP meeting all applicable
requirements under section 110(k), section 110, and part D of the CAA.
3. Criterion (3): The Improvement in Air Quality Must Be Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
The improvement in air quality must be due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from the SIP, Federal
measures, and other State adopted measures. The improvement in air
quality in the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area is due to
emissions reductions from the Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Control
Program (FMVECP), Stage II gasoline vapor recovery program, VOC RACT
controls, and the partial implementation of E-Check. Between 1993 and
1996, the VOC emissions in the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area were reduced by 6.7 percent. The emission control programs noted
here have been adopted by the State and have been approved into the
Ohio SIP by the EPA. Based on this conclusion, it is concluded that
Ohio has complied with Criteria (3). It is further noted that,
subsequent to 1996, Ohio has continued to implement these emission
controls and has adopted statewide NOX emission control
rules in compliance with EPA's NOX SIP call, further
improving the air quality in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. See the
documentation of 1990, 1993, and 1996 VOC and NOX emissions
for the Cincinnati area in Tables 2 and 3 of our January 24, 2000
proposed rule for the Cincinnati-Hamilton ozone redesignation (65 FR
3638).
4. Criterion (4): The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
Meeting the Requirements of Section 175A
EPA is proposing to approve the updated maintenance plan and to
determine that it meets the requirements of the CAA.
In its January 24, 2000 proposed rule (65 FR 3630), the EPA
documented and proposed to approve a maintenance plan for the Ohio
portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area as meeting the requirements of
section 175A. This maintenance plan was approved in EPA's June 19, 2000
final rule (65 FR 37879). Although the Court, in Wall v. EPA, vacated
EPA's approval of the redesignation of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area due
to the lack of VOC RACT rules in Ohio, the Court upheld EPA's approval
of Ohio's ozone maintenance plan for the Cincinnati area.
Due to passage of time, Ohio's original maintenance demonstration,
which projected maintenance of the ozone standard through 2010, no
longer satisfies the requirement that the maintenance plan demonstrate
maintenance for 10 years after EPA approval of the ozone redesignation
request. Based on this fact, Ohio EPA has updated the maintenance plan
to demonstrate maintenance through 2015. Below we review this updated
maintenance plan.
Please note that besides updating the maintenance plan to
demonstrate maintenance of the 1-hour ozone standard through 2015, Ohio
EPA has also revised the maintenance plan to demonstrate that the 1-
hour ozone standard can be maintained even if the E-Check program is
terminated in the Cincinnati area. Ohio EPA has also requested that the
E-Check program be moved to the contingency portion of the maintenance
plan. All other aspects of the contingency portion of the plan, as
approved on June 19, 2000 remain in place. See our January 24, 2000
proposed rule (65 FR 3639) for a discussion of Ohio's contingency plan.
Also please note that the ozone maintenance plan approved by EPA on
June 19, 2000 included the adoption of additional RACT rules as a
contingency measure. Since Ohio is in the process of adopting the
additional RACT rules to meet the requirements of the CAA, the
consideration of RACT adoption as a contingency measure is no longer
warranted. Should a need for the implementation of contingency measures
be subsequently triggered, the State would have to consider other
contingency measures since this contingency measure is no longer
available. Even though the State has not removed this contingency
measure from the maintenance plan, we do not see this as a basis for
disapproving Ohio's ozone redesignation request. The maintenance plan
is not corrupted by this issue since Ohio would be forced to consider
alternate contingency measures if triggered, and the presence of the
RACT adoption contingency measure in the maintenance plan does not
prevent Ohio from doing so.
The contingency plan provisions of the maintenance plan are
designed to promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. Section 175A of the Ac
