Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-IN-KY Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual Standard for Fine Particulate Matter, 792-805 [2016-31635]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
792
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules
section, will only be enforced when
Coast Guard Sector Guam issues a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF–
FM marine channel 16 about the zone
and Naval Wharf Kilo, and a vessel
berthed at Naval Wharf Kilo, is
displaying a red (BRAVO) flag by day or
a red light by night.
(2) Safety Zone B described in
paragraph (a) of this section will only be
enforced when Coast Guard Sector
Guam issues a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners via VHF–FM marine channel
16 about the zone and Naval Wharf Kilo,
and a vessel berthed at Naval Wharf
Kilo, is displaying 2 red (BRAVO) flags
by day or 2 red lights by night.
(3) Safety Zone D is permanent and
will be enforced at all times.
(4) Under general regulations in
§ 165.23, during periods of enforcement,
entry into the Safety Zones A and B as
described in paragraph (a) of this
section, is prohibited unless expressly
authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Guam or a designated representative.
Entry into Safety Zone D is prohibited
at all times unless expressly authorized
by the Captain of the Port, Guam or a
designated representative.
Dated: December 5, 2016.
James B. Pruett,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Guam.
[FR Doc. 2016–31894 Filed 1–3–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0479; FRL–9957–60–
Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Ohio;
Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of
the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-IN-KY
Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual
Standard for Fine Particulate Matter
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to
redesignate the Ohio portion of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-IN-KY,
nonattainment area (hereafter, ‘‘the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area’’) to
attainment for the 1997 fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) annual national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS or
standard). The Ohio portion of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area includes
Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren
Counties. Because EPA has determined
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jan 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area is
attaining the annual PM2.5 standard,
EPA is proposing to redesignate the area
to attainment and also proposing several
additional related actions. EPA is
proposing to approve the Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM)Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) portion of Ohio’s
Cincinnati-Hamilton area attainment
plan SIP revision as providing adequate
RACM/RACT. EPA is proposing to
approve an update to the Ohio state
implementation plan (SIP), by updating
the state’s approved plan for
maintaining the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS through 2027. EPA previously
approved the base year emissions
inventory for the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area, and is proposing to approve Ohio’s
updated emission inventory which
includes emission inventories for
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
ammonia. Ohio’s approved maintenance
plan submission includes a budget for
the mobile source contribution of PM2.5
and nitrogen oxides (NOX) to the
Cincinnati-Hamilton Ohio PM2.5 area for
transportation conformity purposes,
which EPA is proposing to approve and
update. EPA is proposing to take these
actions in accordance with the Clean
Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s
implementation rule regarding the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before February 3, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2016–0479 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the ‘‘For Further
Information Contact’’ section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph Ko, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–7947,
ko.joseph@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
supplementary information section is
arranged as follows:
Contents
I. Background
II. What are the criteria for redesignation to
attainment?
III. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s
request?
1. Attainment
2. Section 110 and Part D Requirements,
and Approval SIP under Section 110(k)
(Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v))
3. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
in Emissions (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii))
4. Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section
175A of the CAA (Section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv))
5. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
(MVEBs) for the Mobile Source
Contribution to PM2.5 and NOX
6. Comprehensive Emissions Inventory
IV. EPA’s Proposed Actions
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
The first air quality standards for
PM2.5 were promulgated on July 18,
1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated
an annual standard at a level of 15
micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) of
ambient air, based on a three-year
average of the annual mean PM2.5
concentrations at each monitoring site.
On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, EPA
published air quality area designations
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard
based on air quality data for calendar
years 2001–2003. In that rulemaking,
EPA designated the CincinnatiHamilton area (the Ohio portion being
Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren
Counties) as nonattainment for the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard.
In this proposed redesignation, EPA
takes into account two decisions of the
D.C. Circuit. On August 21, 2012, in
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), the
D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded the
Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
and ordered EPA to continue
administering the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) ‘‘pending . . . development
of a valid replacement.’’ EME Homer
City at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all
E:\FR\FM\04JAP1.SGM
04JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules
petitions for rehearing in the case on
January 24, 2013. In the second
decision, on January 4, 2013, the D.C.
Circuit remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final
Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation
Rule’’ (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and
the ‘‘Implementation of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May
16, 2008). Natural Resources Defense
Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.
2013).
II. What are the criteria for
redesignation to attainment?
The CAA sets forth the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for
redesignation provided that: (1) The
Administrator determines that the area
has attained the applicable NAAQS
based on current air quality data; (2) the
Administrator has fully approved an
applicable SIP 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, Federal air pollution
control regulations, or other permanent
and enforceable emission reductions; (4)
the Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area meeting
the requirements of section 175A of the
CAA; and (5) the state containing the
area has met all requirements applicable
to the area for purposes of redesignation
under section 110 and part D of the
CAA.
III. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s
request?
EPA is proposing to redesignate the
Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area to attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, and is proposing to
approve updates to Ohio’s maintenance
plan for the area and other related SIP
revisions. EPA is also proposing to
approve Ohio’s RACM/RACT analysis.
The bases for these proposed actions
follow.
1. Attainment
In accordance with section 179(c) of
the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7509(c) and 40 CFR
51.1004(c), EPA is proposing to
determine that the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. This proposed determination
is based upon complete, qualityassured, and certified ambient air
monitoring data for the 2013–2015
monitoring period that shows this area
has monitored attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR
50.7, the annual primary and secondary
PM2.5 standards are met when the
annual arithmetic mean concentration,
as determined in accordance with 40
CFR part 50, appendix N, is less than or
equal to 15.0 mg/m3 at all relevant
monitoring sites in the area.
EPA has reviewed the ambient air
quality monitoring data in the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area, consistent
with the provisions of 40 CFR part 50,
appendix T. EPA’s review focused on
data recorded in the EPA Air Quality
System (AQS) database for the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area for PM2.5
nonattainment area from 2013–2015.
The Cincinnati-Hamilton area has
nine monitors located in Butler (OH),
793
Hamilton (OH), and Campbell (KY)
Counties that reported design values
from 2013–2015 for PM2.5 that ranged
from 9.5 to 11.2 mg/m3 for the 1997
annual standard. The data are
summarized shown in Table 1 below.
There are three additional monitor
sites in Butler County that are not listed
in Table 1 because the data from these
sites are not used for redesignation
purposes. On October 31, 2014, EPA
determined that site 39–017–0020 was
located within the immediate area of
several facilities, and that the
monitoring data from the site would no
longer be compared to the annual PM2.5
standard. On February 5, 2015, monitor
site 39–017–0022 in Bulter County
became active, but since it is a ‘‘special
purpose monitor’’, it cannot be used for
comparison to the NAAQS before 24
months, per 40 CFR 58.20. Additionally,
a new monitor site, 39–017–0016,
became active in 2016 but it was not
included in Ohio’s analysis because it
does not yet have three years of valid
data.
All monitors in the CincinnatiHamilton area recorded complete data
in accordance with criteria set forth by
EPA in 40 CFR part 50 appendix N,
where a complete year of air quality
data comprises four calendar quarters,
with each quarter containing data from
at least 75% capture of the scheduled
sampling days. Data available are
considered to be sufficient for
comparison to the NAAQS if three
consecutive complete years of data
exist. Recently the state certified data
for 2013–2015 show the area continues
to attain the standard. Partial 2016 data
for all relevant monitors also support a
finding that the area continues to attain
the standard.
TABLE 1—ANNUAL PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES FOR THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA FOR 2013–2015
Annual design values (μg/m3)
County/Site
Year
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
2013
Butler, OH:
39–017–0003
39–017–0016
39–017–0019
Hamilton, OH:
39–061–0006
39–061–0014
39–061–0040
39–061–0042
39–061–0010
Campbell, KY:
21–037–3002
Average
2014
2015
2013–2015
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
11.1
10.7
11
11.3
10.7
11.2
10.3
9.5
10.2
10.9
10.3
10.8
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
............................................................................................
10.1
11.6
10.6
11.5
10.5
10.3
11.3
10.4
11.2
10.4
9.3
10.7
9.2
10.1
9.2
9.9
11.2
10.1
11
10
............................................................................................
9.6
9.7
9.4 *
9.5
* less than 75% capture in one quarter at the primary monitor, but substitution using a secondary monitor was completed resulting in an AQS
’valid’ design value.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jan 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04JAP1.SGM
04JAP1
794
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Based on the information summarized
above, EPA has found that the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area has attained
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
2. Section 110 and Part D Requirements,
and Approval SIP Under Section 110(k)
(Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v))
We have determined that, under
section 110 of the CAA (general SIP
requirements), Ohio has met all
currently applicable SIP requirements
for purposes of redesignation for the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area. We are also
proposing to find, in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v), that the Ohio
submittal meets all SIP requirements
currently applicable for purposes of
redesignation under part D of title I of
the CAA. In addition, we are proposing
to find, in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii), that all applicable
requirements of the Ohio SIP for
purposes of redesignation have been
approved. As discussed above, EPA
previously approved Ohio’s 2005
emissions inventory as meeting the
section 172(c)(3) comprehensive
emissions inventory requirement.
In making these proposed
determinations, we have ascertained
which SIP requirements are applicable
for purposes of redesignation, and
concluded that the Ohio SIP includes
measures meeting those requirements
and that they are fully approved under
section 110(k) of the CAA.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
a. Section 110 General SIP
Requirements
Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA
contains the general requirements for a
SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the
implementation plan submitted by a
state must have been adopted by the
state after reasonable public notice and
hearing, and, among other things, must:
Include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures,
means or techniques necessary to meet
the requirements of the CAA; provide
for establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems,
and procedures necessary to monitor
ambient air quality; provide for
implementation of a source permit
program to regulate the modification
and construction of any stationary
source within the areas covered by the
plan; include provisions for the
implementation of part C, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part
D, NSR permit programs; include
criteria for stationary source emission
control measures, monitoring, and
reporting; include provisions for air
quality modeling; and provide for
public and local agency participation in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jan 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
planning and emission control rule
development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA
requires that SIPs contain measures to
prevent sources in a state from
significantly contributing to air quality
problems in another state. EPA believes
that the requirements linked with a
particular nonattainment area’s
designation are the relevant measures to
evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable,
continue to apply to a state regardless of
the designation of any one particular
area in the state. Thus, we believe that
these requirements should not be
construed as the applicable
requirements for purposes of
redesignation.
Further, we believe that the other
section 110 elements described above
that are not connected with
nonattainment plan submissions and
not linked with an area’s attainment
status are not applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation. A state
remains subject to these requirements
after an area is redesignated to
attainment. We conclude that only the
section 110 and part D requirements
that are linked with a particular area’s
designation are the relevant measures
which we may consider in evaluating a
redesignation request. See Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176,
October 10, 1996) and (62 FR 24826,
May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,
Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458,
May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7,
1995). See also the discussion on this
issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour
ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June
19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone
redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19,
2001).
We have reviewed the Ohio SIP and
have concluded that it meets the general
SIP requirements under section 110 of
the CAA to the extent they are
applicable for purposes of
redesignation. EPA has previously
approved provisions of Ohio’s SIP
addressing section 110 requirements
(including provisions addressing
particulate matter), at 40 CFR 52.1870.
On December 5, 2007, Ohio made a
submittal addressing ‘‘infrastructure
SIP’’ elements required under CAA
section 110(a)(2). EPA proposed
approval of the December 5, 2007,
submittal on April 28, 2011, at 76 FR
23757 and published final approval on
July 13, 2011, at 76 FR 41075.
The remaining parts of the
infrastructure SIPs required by section
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
110(a)(2) are not relevant to this
redesignation, and are statewide
requirements that are not linked to the
PM2.5 nonattainment status of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Therefore,
EPA believes that these SIP elements are
not applicable requirements for
purposes of review of the state’s PM2.5
redesignation request.
b. Part D Requirements
EPA has determined that, upon
approval of the base year emissions
inventories discussed in section III.6 of
this rulemaking, the Ohio SIP will meet
the applicable SIP requirements for the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area applicable for
purposes of redesignation under part D
of the CAA. Subpart 1 of part D, found
in sections 172–176 of the CAA, sets
forth the basic nonattainment
requirements applicable to all
nonattainment areas. Subpart 4 of part
D, found in sections 189 of the CAA,
sets forth nonattainment requirements
applicable for particulate matter
nonattainment areas.
(i) RACM/RACT Requirements Under
Section 172(c)(1)
Section 172(c)(1) requires that each
attainment plan ‘‘provide for the
implementation of all reasonably
available control measures as
expeditiously as practicable (including
such reductions in emissions from the
existing sources in the area as may be
obtained through the adoption, at a
minimum, of reasonably available
control technology), and shall provide
for attainment of the national primary
ambient air quality standards.’’ The
PM2.5 Implementation Rule (72 FR
20586) requires that the subpart 1
RACM portion of the attainment plan
SIP revision include the list of potential
measures that a state considered and
additional information sufficient to
show that the state has met all
requirements for the determination of
what constitutes RACM in a specific
nonattainment area. See 40 CFR
51.1010(a). Any measures that are
necessary to meet these requirements
that are not already either federally
promulgated, part of the SIP, or
otherwise creditable in SIPs must be
submitted in enforceable form as part of
a state’s attainment plan SIP revision for
the area.
In 1972, 1980, and 1991, Ohio
promulgated RACM rules for particulate
emissions from stationary sources. Ohio
also has RACT rules found in OAC
Chapter 3745–17. Lake Michigan Air
Directors Consortium (LADCO), in
consultation with two contractors,
performed a series of studies exploring
control measures for reducing both
E:\FR\FM\04JAP1.SGM
04JAP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules
ozone precursors and PM2.5 precursors
in Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and
Wisconsin. Photochemical modeling
was then conducted to assess the air
quality benefits of the candidate control
measures. In its attainment
demonstration submitted on July 18,
2008, Ohio demonstrated that
attainment would be achieved in the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area by 2009,
based on the modeling conducted by the
LADCO project team. Because of the
projected 2009 attainment date, it would
not have been reasonably possible or
practicable for Ohio to develop RACM/
RACT requirements, promulgate
regulations and implement a control
program prior to 2009. Ohio concluded
that its RACM/RACT analysis, based on
LADCO modeling, demonstrates that
current control measures in Ohio satisfy
RACM/RACT for the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard.
EPA has reviewed Ohio’s RACM/
RACT analysis and agrees that it
indicates that no other reasonably
available measures were available, or
necessary, to attain or advance
attainment of the standard. Because
Ohio has demonstrated with modeling
that no further control measures would
advance the attainment date in the area,
EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s
RACM/RACT portion of the attainment
plan SIP revision as providing adequate
RACM/RACT consistent with the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.1010(b).
EPA previously redesignated the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard,
predicated in part on a finding that the
RACM/RACT requirement (interpreted
as reflecting those reasonable measures
needed to attain the standard) was not
an applicable requirement for purposes
of redesignation of areas already
meeting the standard. EPA has long
interpreted that subpart 1
nonattainment planning requirements,
including RACM, are not ‘‘applicable for
purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and
(v) when an area is attaining the
NAAQS, and, therefore, need not be
approved into the SIP before EPA can
redesignate the area. See 76 FR 80258.
On July 14, 2015, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
(Sixth Circuit) issued an opinion in
Sierra Club v. EPA, 793 F.3d 656 (6th
Cir. 2015), vacating EPA’s redesignation
of the Indiana and Ohio portions of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on the basis
that EPA had not approved subpart 1
RACM for the area into the SIP.1 The
1 The Court issued its initial decision in the case
on March 18, 2015, and subsequently issued an
amended opinion on July 14 after appeals for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jan 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
Sixth Circuit vacated the redesignation
of the Ohio and Indiana portion of the
area based on its view that RACM/RACT
must be considered an applicable
requirement for designation purposes.
Consistent with that ruling, EPA is now
finding that Ohio has satisfied this
applicable requirement.
(ii) Other Section 172 Requirements
For purposes of evaluating this
redesignation request, the applicable
section 172 SIP requirements for the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area are contained
in sections 172(c)(1)–(9). A thorough
discussion of the requirements
contained in section 172 can be found
in the General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992).
Under section 172, states with
nonattainment areas must submit plans
providing for timely attainment and
meeting a variety of other requirements.
However, pursuant to 40 CFR
51.1004(c), EPA’s determination that the
area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard suspends the requirement to
submit certain planning SIPs related to
attainment, including: Attainment
demonstration requirements, the RFP
and attainment demonstration
requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and
(6) and 182(b)(1) of the CAA, and the
requirement for contingency measures
of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
As a result, the only remaining
requirements under section 172 to be
considered are the emissions inventory
requirement under section 172(c)(3),
and the RACM/RACT requirement of
section 172(c)(1) per the 6th circuit
decision. As discussed previously, EPA
is proposing to approve the VOCs and
ammonia emissions inventories that
Ohio submitted as satisfying the section
172(c)(3) requirement, and existing
control measures as satisfying RACM/
RACT requirements under section
172(c)(1).
No SIP provisions applicable for
redesignation of the CincinnatiHamilton area are currently
disapproved, conditionally approved, or
partially approved. Ohio currently has a
fully approved SIP for all requirements,
as applicable for purposes of
redesignation under the Sixth Circuit’s
Sierra Club decision.
Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans
for all nonattainment areas to provide
rehearing en banc and panel rehearing had been
filed. The amended opinion revised some of the
legal aspects of the Court’s analysis of the relevant
statutory provisions (section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and
section 172(c)(1)), but the overall holding of the
opinion was unaltered. On March 28, 2016, the
Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari from
Ohio requesting review of the Sixth Circuit’s
decision.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
795
for the implementation of RACM as
expeditiously as practicable and to
provide for attainment of the primary
NAAQS. EPA interprets this
requirement to impose a duty on all
states to consider all available control
measures for all nonattainment areas
and to adopt and implement such
measures as are reasonably available for
implementation in each area as
components of the area’s attainment
demonstration.
As noted above in the previous
section, the Sixth Circuit concluded that
‘‘a State seeking redesignation ‘shall
provide for the implementation’ of
RACM/RACT, even if those measures
are not strictly necessary to demonstrate
attainment with the PM2.5 NAAQS. . . .
If a State has not done so, EPA cannot
‘fully approve[]’ the area’s SIP, and
redesignation to attainment status is
improper.’’ Sierra Club, 793 F.3d at 670.
EPA is adhering to the Sixth Circuit’s
decision. Ohio has demonstrated that no
further control measures would be
necessary to advance the attainment
date in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area,
and EPA is proposing to approve
existing control measures as satisfying
RACM/RACT requirements under
section 172(c)(1). A further discussion
on RACM/RACT requirements can be
found in the previous section entitled
‘‘RACM/RACT Requirements Under
Section 172(c)(1).’’
The reasonable further progress (RFP)
requirement under section 172(c)(2) is
defined as progress that must be made
toward attainment. This requirement is
not relevant for purposes of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton redesignation
because the area has monitored
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. (General Preamble, 57 FR
13564). See also 40 CFR 51.918. The
requirement to submit the section
172(c)(9) contingency measures is
similarly not applicable for purposes of
redesignation. Id.
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission
and approval of a comprehensive,
accurate and current inventory of actual
emissions. Ohio submitted a 2005 base
year emissions inventory in the required
attainment plan, and also updated the
emissions inventory with VOCs and
ammonia emissions from 2007. EPA
previously approved the 2005 base year
emissions inventory (76 FR 64825), and
is proposing to approve the emissions
inventory for VOCs and ammonia.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the
identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and
modified stationary sources in an area,
and section 172(c)(5) requires source
permits for the construction and
operation of new and modified major
E:\FR\FM\04JAP1.SGM
04JAP1
796
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
stationary sources anywhere in the
nonattainment area. EPA approved
Ohio’s current NSR program on January
10, 2003 (68 FR 1366), but has not
approved updates since that time.
Nonetheless, since PSD requirements
will apply after redesignation, the area
need not have a fully-approved NSR
program for purposes of redesignation,
provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the NAAQS without
part D NSR. A detailed rationale for this
view is described in a memorandum
from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation,
dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ‘‘Part
D New Source Review Requirements for
Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.’’ Ohio has demonstrated
that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area will
be able to maintain the standard without
part D NSR in effect; therefore, the state
need not have a fully approved part D
NSR program prior to approval of the
redesignation request. The state’s PSD
program will become effective in the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area upon
redesignation to attainment. See
rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60
FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR
20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665,
October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids,
Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21,
1996).
Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to
contain control measures necessary to
provide for attainment of the standard.
Because attainment has been reached,
no additional measures are needed to
provide for attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to
meet the applicable provisions of
section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we
have found that Ohio’s SIP meets the
applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2) for purposes of redesignation.
(iii) Section 176 Conformity
Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federallysupported or funded activities,
including highway projects, conform to
the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIPs. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs and
projects developed, funded or approved
under Title 23 of the U.S. Code and the
Federal Transit Act (transportation
conformity) as well as to all other
Federally-supported or funded projects
(general conformity). State
transportation conformity regulations
must be consistent with Federal
conformity regulations relating to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jan 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
consultation, enforcement, and
enforceability, which EPA promulgated
pursuant to CAA requirements.
EPA approved Ohio’s transportation
conformity SIPs on March 2, 2015 (80
FR 11134). In April 2010, EPA
promulgated changes to 40 CFR 51.851,
eliminating the requirement for states to
maintain a general conformity SIP.
Following this promulgation, EPA
granted Ohio’s request to remove its
general conformity regulations from the
SIP. See 80 FR 29968. EPA confirms that
Ohio has met the applicable conformity
requirements under section 176.
(iv) Subpart 4
On January 4, 2013, in Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the
D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final
Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation
Rule’’ (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and
the ‘‘Implementation of the New Source
Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May
16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428
(D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court found that
EPA erred in implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general
implementation provisions of subpart 1
of part D of title I of the CAA, rather
than the particulate-matter-specific
provisions of subpart 4 of part D of
title I.
EPA has longstanding general
guidance that interprets the 1990
amendments to the CAA, making
recommendations to states for meeting
the statutory requirements for SIPs for
nonattainment areas. See, ‘‘State
Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clear Air Act Amendments
of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)
(the ‘‘General Preamble’’). In the General
Preamble, EPA discussed the
relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4
SIP requirements, and pointed out that
subpart 1 requirements were, to an
extent, ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally
related to, the more specific PM–10
requirements.’’ 57 FR 13538 (April 16,
1992). The subpart 1 requirements
include, among other things, provisions
for attainment demonstrations, RACM,
RFP, emissions inventories, and
contingency measures.
For the purposes of this redesignation,
in order to identify any additional
requirements which would apply under
subpart 4, we are considering the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area to be a
‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5 nonattainment area.
Under section 188 of the CAA, all areas
designated nonattainment areas under
subpart 4 would initially be classified
by operation of law as ‘‘moderate’’
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
nonattainment areas, and would remain
moderate nonattainment areas unless
and until EPA reclassifies the area as a
‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area.
Accordingly, EPA believes that it is
appropriate to limit the evaluation of
the potential impact of subpart 4
requirements to those that would be
applicable to moderate nonattainment
areas.
Section 189(a) and (c) of subpart 4
applies to moderate nonattainment areas
and includes the following: (1) An
approved permit program for
construction of new and modified major
stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A));
(2) an attainment demonstration (section
189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM
(section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4)
quantitative milestones demonstrating
RFP toward attainment by the
applicable attainment date (section
189(c)).
The permit requirements of subpart 4,
as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A),
refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit
provisions requirements of sections 172
and 173 to PM10, without adding to
them. Consequently, EPA believes that
section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself
impose for redesignation purposes any
additional requirements for moderate
areas beyond those contained in subpart
1.2 In any event, in the context of
redesignation, EPA has long relied on
the interpretation that a fully approved
nonattainment new source review
program is not considered an applicable
requirement for redesignation, provided
the area can maintain the standard with
a PSD program after redesignation. A
detailed rationale for this view is
described in a memorandum from Mary
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.’’ See also
rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60
FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR
20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665,
October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids,
Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21,
1996).
With respect to the specific
attainment planning requirements under
subpart 4,3 when EPA evaluates a
redesignation request under subpart 1
and/or 4, any area that is attaining the
PM2.5 standard is viewed as having
satisfied the attainment planning
2 The potential effect of section 189(e) on section
189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this
redesignation is discussed below.
3 I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM,
milestone requirements, contingency measures.
E:\FR\FM\04JAP1.SGM
04JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules
of NOX from power plants, mobile
sources, and other combustion sources.
CAA section 189(e) specifically
provides that control requirements for
major stationary sources of direct PM10
shall also apply to PM10 precursors from
those sources, except where EPA
The requirements for RFP will not apply in
determines that major stationary sources
evaluating a request for redesignation to
of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute
attainment since, at a minimum, the air
significantly to PM10 levels which
quality data for the area must show that the
area has already attained. Showing that the
exceed the standard in the area.’’
State will make RFP towards attainment will,
For a number of reasons, EPA believes
therefore, have no meaning at that point.
that this proposed redesignation of the
‘‘General Preamble for the Interpretation Cincinnati-Hamilton area is consistent
with the Court’s decision on this aspect
of Title I of the CAA Amendments of
of subpart 4. First, while the Court,
1990’’; (57 FR 13498, 13564, April 16,
citing section 189(e), stated that ‘‘for a
1992).
PM10 area governed by subpart 4, a
The General Preamble also explained
precursor is ‘presumptively regulated,’ ’’
that:
the Court expressly declined to decide
[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are
the specific challenge to EPA’s 1997
directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by
PM2.5 implementation rule provisions
the applicable date. These requirements no
regarding ammonia and VOCs as
longer apply when an area has attained the
precursors. The Court had no occasion
standard and is eligible for redesignation.
Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance
to reach whether and how it was
plans . . . provides specific requirements for substantively necessary to regulate any
contingency measures that effectively
specific precursor in a particular PM2.5
supersede the requirements of section
nonattainment area, and did not address
172(c)(9) for these areas.
what might be necessary for purposes of
acting upon a redesignation request.
Id.
The Cincinnati-Hamilton area has
EPA similarly stated in its September
attained the standard without any
4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum
specific additional controls of VOCs and
(Calcagni memorandum) that, ‘‘[t]he
ammonia emissions from any sources in
requirements for reasonable further
the area.
progress and other measures needed for
Precursors in subpart 4 are
attainment will not apply for
specifically regulated under the
redesignations because they only have
provisions of section 189(e), which
meaning for areas not attaining the
requires, with important exceptions,
standard.’’
control requirements for major
Elsewhere in this action, EPA
stationary sources of PM10 precursors.4
proposes to determine that the area has
As explained below, we do not believe
attained the 1997 annual PM2.5
that any additional controls of ammonia
standard. Under its longstanding
and VOCs are required in the context of
interpretation, EPA is proposing to
this redesignation.
determine here that the area meets the
In the General Preamble, EPA
attainment-related plan requirements of discusses its approach to implementing
subparts 1 and 4. Thus, EPA is
section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538–13542.
proposing to conclude that the
With regard to precursor regulation
requirements to submit an attainment
under section 189(e), the General
demonstration under 189(a)(1)(B), a
Preamble explicitly stated that control
RACM determination under sections
of VOCs under other CAA requirements
172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(c), a RFP
may suffice to relieve a state from the
demonstration under section 189(c)(1),
need to adopt precursor controls under
and contingency measure requirements
section 189(e) (57 FR 13542). EPA
under section 172(c)(9) are satisfied for
proposes to determine that Ohio has met
purposes of evaluating the redesignation the provisions of section 189(e) with
request.
respect to ammonia and VOCs as
PM2.5 pollution can be emitted
precursors. This proposed supplemental
directly from a source (primary PM2.5) or determination is based on our findings
formed secondarily through chemical
that: (1) The Cincinnati-Hamilton area
reactions in the atmosphere involving
contains no major stationary sources of
precursor pollutants emitted from a
variety of sources. Sulfates are a type of
4 Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for
purposes of demonstrating attainment as
secondary particulate formed from SO2
expeditiously as practicable, a state is required to
emissions from power plants and
evaluate all economically and technologically
industrial facilities. Nitrates, another
feasible control measures for direct PM emissions
common type of secondary particulate,
and precursor emissions, and adopt those measures
that are deemed reasonably available.
are formed from combustion emissions
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
requirements for these subparts. For
redesignations, EPA has for many years
interpreted attainment-linked
requirements as not applicable for areas
attaining the standard. In the General
Preamble, EPA stated that:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jan 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
797
ammonia, and (2) existing major
stationary sources of VOCs are
adequately controlled under other
provisions of the CAA regulating the
ozone NAAQS.5 In the alternative, EPA
proposes to determine that, under the
express exception provisions of section
189(e), and in the context of the
redesignation of the area, which is
attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard, at present ammonia and VOCs
precursors from major stationary
sources do not contribute significantly
to levels exceeding the 1997 PM2.5
standard in the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area. See 57 FR 13539–42.
EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5
implementation rule provisions in 40
CFR 51.1002 were not directed at
evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the
context of redesignation, but at SIP
plans and control measures required to
bring a nonattainment area into
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. By contrast, redesignation to
attainment primarily requires the area to
have already attained due to permanent
and enforceable emission reductions,
and to demonstrate that controls in
place can continue to maintain the
standard. Thus, even if we regard the
Court’s January 4, 2013, decision as
calling for ‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of
ammonia and VOCs for PM2.5 under the
attainment planning provisions of
subpart 4, those provisions do not
require additional controls of these
precursors for an area that already
qualifies for redesignation. Nor does
EPA believe that requiring Ohio to
address precursors differently than it
has already would result in a different
redesignation outcome.
Although, as EPA has emphasized, its
consideration here of precursor
requirements under subpart 4 is in the
context of a redesignation to attainment,
EPA’s existing interpretation of subpart
4 requirements with respect to
precursors in attainment plans for PM10
contemplates that states may develop
attainment plans that regulate only
those precursors that are necessary for
purposes of attainment in the area in
question, i.e., states may determine that
only certain precursors need be
regulated for attainment and control
purposes.6 Courts have upheld this
5 The Cincinnati-Hamilton area has reduced VOC
emissions through the implementation of various
SIP approved VOC control programs and various
on-road and nonroad motor vehicle control
programs.
6 See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans for California—San Joaquin
Valley PM–10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area
Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual
PM–10 Standards,’’ 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004)
(approving a PM10 attainment plan that impose
E:\FR\FM\04JAP1.SGM
Continued
04JAP1
798
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
approach to the requirements of subpart
4 for PM10.7 EPA believes that
application of this approach to PM2.5
precursors under subpart 4 is
reasonable. Because the CincinnatiHamilton area has already attained the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS with its
current approach to regulation of PM2.5
precursors, EPA believes that, in the
context of this redesignation, there is no
need to revisit the attainment control
strategy with respect to the treatment of
precursors. Even if the Court’s decision
is construed to impose an obligation to
consider additional precursors under
subpart 4 in evaluating this
redesignation request, it would not
affect EPA’s approval here of Ohio’s
request for redesignation of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Moreover, the
state has shown, and EPA is proposing
to determine, that attainment in this
area is due to permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions on all
precursors necessary to provide for
continued attainment. It follows that no
further control of additional precursors
is necessary. Accordingly, EPA does not
view the January 4, 2013, Court decision
as precluding redesignation of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at this time.
EPA concludes that the area has met
all applicable requirements for purposes
of redesignation in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v).
c. Fully Approved Applicable SIP
Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
Upon final approval of Ohio’s
comprehensive VOCs and ammonia
emissions inventories, EPA will have
fully approved the Ohio SIP for the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area under section
110(k) of the CAA for all requirements
applicable for purposes of
redesignation. EPA may rely on prior
SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request (See page 3 of the
Calcagni memorandum; Southwestern
Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v.
Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–990 (6th
Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426
(6th Cir. 2001)) plus any additional
measures it may approve in conjunction
with a redesignation action. See 68 FR
25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the
passage of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has
adopted and submitted, and EPA has
fully approved, provisions addressing
various required SIP elements under
particulate matter standards. In this
action, EPA is approving Ohio’s VOCs
and ammonia comprehensive emissions
controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and did
not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or ammonia
emissions).
7 See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et
al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jan 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
inventories for the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area as meeting the requirement of
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
3. Permanent and Enforceable
Reductions in Emissions (Section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii))
EPA believes that Ohio has
demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the CincinnatiHamilton area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the
SIPs, Federal measures, and other stateadopted measures.
In making this demonstration, Ohio
has calculated the change in emissions
between 2005, one of the years used to
designate the area as nonattainment,
and 2008, one of the years the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area monitored
attainment. The reduction in emissions
and the corresponding improvement in
air quality over this time period can be
attributed to a number of regulatory
control measures that the CincinnatiHamilton area and contributing areas
have implemented, as discussed below.
a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls
Implemented
The following is a discussion of
permanent and enforceable measures
that have been implemented in the area:
i. Federal Emission Control Measures
Reductions in direct emissions of
PM2.5 and in emissions of PM2.5
precursors have occurred statewide and
in upwind areas as a result of Federal
emission control measures, with
additional emission reductions expected
to occur in the future. Federal emission
control measures include the following.
Tier 2 Emission Standards for
Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards.
EPA finalized this Federal rule in
February 2000. These emission control
requirements result in lower NOX and
SO2 emissions from new cars and light
duty trucks, including sport utility
vehicles. Emission standards
established under EPA’s rules became
effective between 2004 and 2009. EPA
has estimated that, emissions of NOX
from new vehicles have decreased by
the following percentages: Passenger
cars (light duty vehicles)—77 percent;
light duty trucks, minivans, and sports
utility vehicles—86 percent; and, larger
sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier
trucks—69 to 95 percent. EPA expects
fleet-wide average emissions to decline
by similar percentages as new vehicles
replace older vehicles. The Tier 2
standards also reduced the sulfur
content of gasoline by up to 90 percent.
VOCs emissions reductions will be
approximately 12 percent for passenger
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
cars; 18 percent for smaller SUVs, light
trucks, and minivans; and 15 percent for
larger SUVs, vans, and heavier trucks.
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. EPA
issued this rule in July 2000. This rule,
which was phased in between 2004 and
2007, includes standards limiting the
sulfur content of diesel fuel. This rule
is estimated to reduce NOX emissions
from diesel trucks and buses by
approximately 40 percent. The level of
sulfur in highway diesel fuel is also
estimated to have dropped by 97
percent by mid-2006 due to this rule.
Nonroad Diesel Rule. In May 2004,
EPA promulgated a new rule for large
nonroad diesel engines, such as those
used in construction, agriculture, and
mining equipment, to be phased in
between 2008 and 2014. Prior to 2006,
nonroad diesel fuel averaged
approximately 3,000 ppm sulfur. This
rule limited nonroad diesel sulfur
content to 15 ppm by 2010. It is
estimated that compliance with this rule
has cut emissions from nonroad diesel
engines by more than 90%. This rule
achieved some emission reductions by
2008 and was fully implemented by
2010. The reduction in fuel sulfur
content also yielded an immediate
reduction in sulfate particle emissions
from all diesel vehicles.
ii. Control Measures in Contributing
Areas
Given the significance of sulfates and
nitrates in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area,
the area’s air quality is strongly affected
by regulated emissions from power
plants.
NOX SIP Call. On October 27, 1998 (63
FR 57356), EPA issued a NOX SIP Call
requiring the District of Columbia and
22 states to reduce emissions of NOX.
Affected states were required to comply
with Phase I of the SIP Call beginning
in 2004, and Phase II beginning in 2007.
Emission reductions resulting from
regulations developed in response to the
NOX SIP Call are permanent and
enforceable.
CAIR and CSAPR. EPA proposed
CAIR on January 30, 2004, at 69 FR
4566, promulgated CAIR on May 12,
2005, at 70 FR 25162, and promulgated
associated Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) on April 28, 2006, at 71 FR
25328, in order to reduce SO2 and NOX
emissions and improve air quality in
many areas across the Eastern United
States. However, on July 11, 2008, the
United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit or Court) issued its decision to
vacate and remand both CAIR and the
associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety
(North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836
(D.C. Cir. 2008)). EPA petitioned for a
E:\FR\FM\04JAP1.SGM
04JAP1
799
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules
rehearing, and the Court issued an order
remanding CAIR and the CAIR FIPs to
EPA without vacatur (North Carolina v.
EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008)).
The Court, thereby, left CAIR in place in
order to ‘‘temporarily preserve the
environmental values covered by CAIR’’
until EPA replaced it with a rule
consistent with the Court’s opinion (id.
at 1178). The Court directed EPA to
‘‘remedy CAIR’s flaws’’ consistent with
the July 11, 2008, opinion, but declined
to impose a schedule on EPA for
completing this action (id).
On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208),
acting on the D.C. Circuit’s remand, EPA
promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR
and, thus, to address the interstate
transport of emissions contributing to
nonattainment and interfering with
maintenance of the two air quality
standards covered by CAIR as well as
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR requires
substantial reductions of SO2 and NOX
emissions from electric generating units
(EGUs) in 28 states in the eastern United
States. As a general matter, because
CSAPR is CAIR’s replacement,
emissions reductions associated with
CAIR will for most areas be made
permanent and enforceable through
implementation of CSAPR.
Numerous parties filed petitions for
review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit,
and on August 21, 2012, the court
issued its ruling, vacating and
remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering
continued implementation of CAIR.
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The
D.C. Circuit’s vacatur of CSAPR was
reversed by the United States Supreme
Court on April 29, 2014, and the case
was remanded to the D.C. Circuit to
resolve remaining issues in accordance
with the high court’s ruling. EPA v. EME
Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct.
1584 (2014).
On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed
CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated
without vacating some of the CSAPR
budgets as to a number of states. EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795
F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (EME Homer
City II). The litigation over CSAPR
ultimately delayed implementation of
that rule for three years, from January 1,
2012, when CSAPR’s cap-and-trade
programs were originally scheduled to
replace the CAIR cap-and-trade
programs, to January 1, 2015. CSAPR’s
Phase 2 budgets were originally
promulgated to begin on January 1,
2014, and are now scheduled to begin
on January 1, 2017. As part of the
remand, the D.C. Circuit found the Ohio
2014 NOX budget was invalid, stating
that based on EPA’s own data, Ohio
made no contribution to downwind
states’ nonattainment. On November 16,
2015, EPA proposed the CSAPR Update
Rule (80 FR 75706) which, when
finalized, will establish permanent and
enforceable reduction through revised
NOX ozone season budgets for Ohio.
Because the emission reduction
requirements of CAIR were enforceable
through the 2011 control period, and
because CSAPR has been promulgated
to address the requirements previously
addressed by CAIR and will achieve
similar or greater reductions once
finalized, EPA has determined that the
EGU emission reductions that helped
lead to attainment in the CincinnatiHamilton area can now be considered
permanent and enforceable and that the
requirement of CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) has been met.
Market’s acid rain database. These
emissions reflect Ohio’s NOX emission
budgets resulting from EPA’s NOX SIP
call. The 2008 emissions from EGUs
reflect Ohio’s emission caps under
CAIR. All other point source emissions
were obtained from Ohio’s source
facility emissions reporting.
Area source emissions for the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area for 2005 were
taken from periodic emissions
inventories.8 These 2005 area source
emission estimates were extrapolated to
2008. Source growth factors were
supplied by LADCO. These growth
factors were based on the U.S
Department of Commerce Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) growth
factors, with some updated local
information.
Nonroad mobile source emissions
were extrapolated from nonroad mobile
source emissions reported in EPA’s
2005 National Emissions Inventory
(NEI). Contractors were employed by
LADCO to estimate emissions for
commercial marine vessels and
railroads.
On-road mobile source emissions
were calculated using EPA’s mobile
source emission factor model,
MOVES2010, in conjunction with
transportation model results developed
by the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional
Council of Governments (OKI).
All emissions estimates discussed
below were documented in the
submittals and appendices to Ohio’s
redesignation request submittal of July
22, 2016. For these data and additional
emissions inventory data, the reader is
referred to EPA’s digital docket for this
rule, https://www.regulations.gov, for
docket number EPA–R05–OAR–2016–
0479, which includes a digital copy of
Ohio’s submittal.
Emissions data in tons per year (tpy)
for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area are
shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4 below.
b. Emission Reductions
Ohio developed an emissions
inventory for NOX, direct PM2.5, and
SO2 for 2005, one of the years used to
designate the area as nonattainment,
and 2008, one of the years the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area monitored
attainment of the standard.
Emissions of SO2 and NOX from EGUs
were derived from EPA’s Clean Air
TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF 2005 EMISSIONS FROM THE NONATTAINMENT YEAR AND 2008 EMISSIONS FOR AN
ATTAINMENT YEAR FOR NOX IN THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Sector
2005
EGU Point ........................................................................................................................
Non-EGU .........................................................................................................................
Non-road ..........................................................................................................................
Other (Area) .....................................................................................................................
Marine, Air, and Rail (MAR) ............................................................................................
On-road ............................................................................................................................
8 Periodic emission inventories are derived by
states every three years and reported to EPA. These
periodic emission inventories are required by the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jan 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
55,930.44
10,371.70
12,417.57
7,810.74
9,352.60
71,919.89
Federal Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule,
codified at 40 CFR Subpart A. EPA revised these
and other emission reporting requirements in a final
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2008
46,853.89
9,790.50
10,561.92
7,975.67
9,052.95
64,471.22
Net change
(2008–2005)
¥9,076.55
¥581.20
¥1,855.65
164.93
¥299.65
¥7,448.67
rule published on December 17, 2008, at 73 FR
76539.
E:\FR\FM\04JAP1.SGM
04JAP1
800
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF 2005 EMISSIONS FROM THE NONATTAINMENT YEAR AND 2008 EMISSIONS FOR AN
ATTAINMENT YEAR FOR NOX IN THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA—Continued
ector
Sector
2005
Total ..........................................................................................................................
2008
167,802.94
148,706.15
Net change
(2008–2005)
¥19,096.79
TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF 2005 EMISSIONS FROM THE NONATTAINMENT YEAR AND 2008 EMISSIONS FOR AN
ATTAINMENT YEAR FOR SO2 IN THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA
Sector
2005
2008
Net change
(2008–2005)
EGU Point ........................................................................................................................
Non-EGU .........................................................................................................................
Non-road ..........................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................................
MAR .................................................................................................................................
On-road ............................................................................................................................
218,395.56
15,532.09
1,057.16
3,494.39
1,092.58
392.00
98,334.17
13,483.92
416.87
3,520.77
982.82
277.59
¥120,061.39
¥2,048.17
¥640.29
26.38
¥109.76
¥114.41
Total ..........................................................................................................................
239,963.78
117,016.14
¥122,947.64
TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF 2005 EMISSIONS FROM THE NONATTAINMENT YEAR AND 2008 EMISSIONS FOR AN
ATTAINMENT YEAR FOR DIRECT PM2.5 IN THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA
Sector
2005
2008
Net change
(2008–2005)
EGU Point ........................................................................................................................
Non-EGU .........................................................................................................................
Non-road ..........................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................................
MAR .................................................................................................................................
On-road ............................................................................................................................
2,062.91
1,352.79
984.35
1,828.85
416.20
2,810.30
1,633.15
1,458.52
853.89
1,864.80
414.43
2,679.85
¥429.76
105.73
¥130.46
35.95
¥1.77
¥130.45
Total ..........................................................................................................................
9,455.40
8,904.64
¥550.76
Table 2 shows reductions in NOX
emissions for the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area by 19,096.79 tpy between 2005
(nonattainment year) and 2008
(attainment year). Table 3 shows that
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area reduced
SO2 emissions by 122,947.64 tpy
between 2005 and 2008. Table 4 shows
reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions for
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area by 550.76
tpy between 2005 and 2008.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section
175A of the CAA (Section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv))
EPA has fully approved an applicable
maintenance plan that meets the
requirements of section 175(a) on
December 23, 2011. See 76 FR 80253. In
conjunction with Ohio’s request to
redesignate the Cincinnati-Hamilton
nonattainment area to attainment, Ohio
has submitted an updated attainment
inventory of the maintenance plan to
reflect the provisions of subpart 4 (Title
I, Part D) of the CAA, and EPA is
updating the maintenance plan to 2027.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jan 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
a. What is required in a maintenance
plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the required elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation
from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must
demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least ten
years after EPA approves a
redesignation to attainment. Eight years
after redesignation, the state must
submit a revised maintenance plan
which demonstrates that attainment will
continue to be maintained for ten years
following the initial ten year
maintenance period. To address the
possibility of future NAAQS violations,
the maintenance plan must contain
contingency measures with a schedule
for implementation as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of
any future PM2.5 violations.
The Calcagni memorandum provides
additional guidance on the content of a
maintenance plan. The memorandum
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
states that a maintenance plan should
address the following items: The
attainment emissions inventory, a
maintenance demonstration showing
maintenance for the ten years of the
maintenance period, a commitment to
maintain the existing monitoring
network, factors and procedures to be
used for verification of continued
attainment of the NAAQS, and a
contingency plan to prevent or correct
future violations of the NAAQS.
Section 175A requires a state seeking
redesignation to attainment to submit a
SIP revision to provide for the
maintenance of the NAAQS in the area
‘‘for at least 10 years after the
redesignation.’’ EPA has interpreted this
as a showing of maintenance ‘‘for a
period of ten years following
redesignation.’’ Calcagni memorandum,
p. 9. Where the emissions inventory
method of showing maintenance is
used, its purpose is to show that
emissions during the maintenance
period will not increase over the
E:\FR\FM\04JAP1.SGM
04JAP1
801
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules
attainment year inventory. Calcagni
memorandum, pp. 9–10.
As discussed in detail in the section
below, the state’s maintenance plan
submission expressly documents that
the area’s emissions inventories will
remain below the attainment year
inventories through 2021. In addition,
for the reasons set forth below, EPA
believes that the state’s submission, in
conjunction with additional supporting
information, further demonstrates that
the area will continue to maintain the
1997 annual SO2 NAAQS at least
through 2027. Thus, any EPA action to
finalize its proposed approval of the
redesignation request and maintenance
plans in 2017, will be based on a
showing, in accordance with section
175A, that the state’s maintenance plan
provides for maintenance for at least ten
years after redesignation.
b. Attainment Inventory
Ohio developed an emissions
inventory for NOX, direct PM2.5, and
SO2 for 2008, one of the years in the
period during which the CincinnatiHamilton area monitored attainment of
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, as
described previously. The attainment
level of emissions is summarized in
Tables 2, 3, and 4, above. Ohio also
included emissions inventories for
VOCs and ammonia from 2007, in
accordance with the provisions of
Subpart 4 (Title I, Part D) of the CAA.
These emissions are summarized in
Table 6, in discussion of the
maintenance plan below.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
Ohio has a fully approved
maintenance plan that meets the
requirements of Section 175(A). See 76
FR 80253. Along with the redesignation
request, Ohio submitted an updated
attainment inventory to reflect the
provision of subpart 4. Ohio’s plan
demonstrates maintenance of the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard through 2021 by
showing that current and future
emissions of NOX, directly emitted
PM2.5 and SO2 in the area remain at or
below attainment year emission levels.
Section 175A requires a state seeking
redesignation to attainment to submit a
SIP revision to provide for the
maintenance of the NAAQS in the area
‘‘for at least 10 years after the
redesignation.’’ EPA has interpreted this
as a showing of maintenance ‘‘for a
period of ten years following
redesignation.’’ Calcagni memorandum,
p. 9. Where the emissions inventory
method of showing maintenance is
used, its purpose is to show that
emissions during the maintenance
period will not increase over the
attainment year inventory. Calcagni
memorandum, pp. 9–10.
As discussed in detail in the section
below, Ohio’s maintenance plan
expressly documents that the area’s
emissions inventories will remain below
the attainment year inventories through
2021. In addition, for the reasons set
forth below, EPA believes that the
state’s submission, in conjunction with
additional supporting information,
further demonstrates that the area will
continue to maintain the PM2.5 standard
at least through 2027. Thus, if EPA
finalizes its proposed approval of the
redesignation request in 2017, it will be
based on a showing, in accordance with
section 175A, that the state’s
maintenance plan provides for
maintenance for at least ten years after
redesignation.
Ohio’s plan demonstrates
maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS through 2021 by showing that
current and future emissions of NOX,
directly emitted PM2.5 and SO2 for the
area remain at or below attainment year
emission levels.
The rate of decline in emissions of
PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 from the
attainment year 2008 through 2021
indicates that the emissions inventory
levels not only significantly decline
between 2008 and 2021, but also will
continue to decline through 2027 and
beyond. PM2.5 emissions in the
nonattainment area are projected to
decrease by 270.09 tpy in 2015 and
702.01 tpy in 2021. NOX emissions in
the nonattainment area are projected to
decrease by 42,994.13 tpy in 2015 and
69,887.02 tpy in 2021. SO2 emissions in
the nonattainment area are projected to
decline by 4,765.88 tpy in 2015 and
28,505.87 in 2021. These rates of
decline are consistent with monitored
and projected air quality trends; and
emissions reductions achieved through
emissions controls and regulations that
will remain in place beyond 2027, and
through fleet turnover that will continue
beyond 2027, among other factors. EPA
is proposing that the previously
approved MVEBs are adequate for
conformity purposes. See section 5
below for further details regarding
MVEBs.
A maintenance demonstration need
not be based on modeling. See Wall v.
EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra
Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099–
53100 (October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413,
25430–25432 (May 12, 2003). Ohio uses
emissions inventory projections for the
years 2018 and 2021 to demonstrate
maintenance for the entire CincinnatiHamilton area. The projected emissions
were estimated by Ohio, with assistance
from LADCO and OKI, who used the
MOVES2010 model for mobile source
projections. Projection modeling of
inventory emissions was done for the
2018 interim year emissions using
estimates based on the 2009 and 2018
LADCO modeling inventory, using
LADCO’s growth factors, for all sectors.
The 2021 maintenance year emission
estimates were based on emissions
estimates from the 2018 LADCO
modeling. Table 5 shows the 2008
attainment base year emission estimates
and the 2015 and 2021 emission
projections for the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area, taken from Ohio’s July 22, 2016,
submission.
TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015 AND 2021 NOX, DIRECT PM2.5, AND SO2 EMISSION TOTALS (tpy) FOR THE
CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
SO2
2008 (baseline) ...................................................................................................................
2015 (interim) ......................................................................................................................
2021 (maintenance) ............................................................................................................
Projected Decrease (2021–2008) .......................................................................................
Table 5 shows that, for the period
between 2008 and the maintenance
projection for 2021, the CincinnatiHamilton area will reduce NOX
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jan 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
NOX
117,016.14 .......
112,250.26 .......
88,510.27 .........
28,505.87 .........
24% decrease ..
148,706.15 .......
105,712.02 .......
78,819.13 .........
69,887.02 .........
47% decrease ..
emissions by 69,887.02 tpy; direct PM2.5
emissions by 702.01 tpy; and SO2
emissions by 28,505.87 tpy. The 2021
projected emissions levels are
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PM2.5
8,904.64.
8,634.55.
8,202.63.
702.01.
8% decrease.
significantly below attainment year
inventory levels, and, based on the rate
of decline, it is highly improbable that
any increases in these levels will occur
E:\FR\FM\04JAP1.SGM
04JAP1
802
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules
in 2027 and beyond. Thus, the
emissions inventories set forth in Table
5 show that the area will continue to
maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard during the maintenance period
and at least through 2027.
As Table 1 demonstrates, monitored
PM2.5 design value concentrations in the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area are well below
the NAAQS in the years beyond 2008,
the attainment year for the area. Further,
those values are trending downward as
time progresses. Based on the future
projections of emissions in 2015 and
2021 showing significant emissions
reductions in direct PM2.5, NOX, and
SO2, it is very unlikely that monitored
PM2.5 values in 2027 and beyond will
show violations of the NAAQS.
Additionally, the 2013–2015 design
values, which range from 9.5 to 11.2 mg/
m3, provide a sufficient margin in the
unlikely event emissions rise slightly in
the future.
Maintenance Plan Evaluation of
Ammonia and VOCs
With regard to the redesignation of
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, in
evaluating the effect of the Court’s
remand of EPA’s implementation rule,
which included presumptions against
consideration of VOCs and ammonia as
PM2.5 precursors, EPA in this proposal
is also considering the impact of the
decision on the maintenance plan
required under sections 175A and
107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To begin with, EPA
notes that the area has attained the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard and that the state
has shown that attainment of the
standard is due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions.
EPA proposes to confirm that the
state’s maintenance plan shows
continued maintenance of the standard
by tracking the levels of the precursors
whose control brought about attainment
of the 1997 PM2.5 standard in the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area. EPA therefore
believes that the only additional
consideration related to the
maintenance plan requirements that
results from the Court’s January 4, 2013
decision is that of assessing the
potential role of VOCs and ammonia in
demonstrating continued maintenance
in this area. As explained below, based
upon documentation provided by the
state and supporting information, EPA
believes that the maintenance plan for
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area need not
include any additional emission
reductions of VOCs or ammonia in order
to provide for continued maintenance of
the standard.
First, as noted above in EPA’s
discussion of section 189(e), VOCs
emission levels in this area have
historically been well-controlled under
SIP requirements related to ozone and
other pollutants. Second, total ammonia
emissions throughout the CincinnatiHamilton area are very low, estimated to
be less than 3,200 tpy. See Table 6
below. This amount of ammonia
emissions appears especially small in
comparison to the total amounts of SO2,
NOX, and even direct PM2.5 emissions
from sources in the area. Third, as
described below, available information
shows that no precursor, including
VOCs and ammonia, is expected to
increase over the maintenance period so
as to interfere with or undermine the
state’s maintenance demonstration.
Ohio’s maintenance plan shows that
emissions of direct PM2.5, SO2, and NOX
are projected to decrease by 702.01 tpy,
28,505.87 tpy, and 69,887.022 tpy,
respectively, over the maintenance
period. See Table 5 above. In addition,
emissions inventories used in the
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS show that VOCs and
ammonia emissions are projected to
decrease by 16,716 tpy and 119 tpy,
respectively between 2007 and 2020.
See Table 6 below. While the RIA
emissions inventories are only projected
out to 2020, there is no reason to believe
that this downward trend would not
continue through 2027. Given that the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area is already
attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
even with the current level of emissions
from sources in the area, the downward
trend of emissions inventories would be
consistent with continued attainment.
Indeed, projected emissions reductions
for the precursors that the state is
addressing for purposes of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS indicate that the area
should continue to attain the NAAQS
following the precursor control strategy
that the state has already elected to
pursue. Even if VOCs and ammonia
emissions were to increase
unexpectedly between 2020 and 2027,
the overall emissions reductions
projected in direct PM2.5, SO2, and NOX
would be sufficient to offset any
increases. For these reasons, EPA
believes that local emissions of all of the
potential PM2.5 precursors will not
increase to the extent that they will
cause monitored PM2.5 levels to violate
the 1997 PM2.5 standard during the
maintenance period.
TABLE 6—COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2020 VOC AND AMMONIA EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (tpy) FOR THE
CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA 9
VOC
Ammonia
Sector
2007
Net change
2020–2007
2020
2007
2020
Net change
2020–2007
224
24,149
9,294
20,317
5,138
224
24,080
5,228
8,041
4,831
0
¥69
¥4,066
¥12,275
¥306
16
2,158
13
890
109
16
2,223
15
481
332
0
65
2
¥409
222
Total ..................................................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
fires ..........................................................
nonpoint ...................................................
nonroad ....................................................
onroad ......................................................
point .........................................................
59,121
42,404
¥16,716
3,186
3,067
¥119
In addition, available air quality
modeling analyses show continued
maintenance of the standard during the
maintenance period. The current annual
9 These emissions estimates were taken from the
emissions inventories developed for the RIA for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS which can be found in the
docket.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jan 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
design values for the area range from 9.5
to 11.2 mg/m3 (based on 2013–2015 air
quality data), which are well below the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 mg/m3.
Moreover, the modeling analysis
conducted for the RIA for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS indicates that the design
values for this area are expected to
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
continue to decline through 2020. In the
RIA analysis, the highest 2020 modeled
design value for the CincinnatiHamilton area is 10.5 mg/m3. Given that
precursor emissions are projected to
decrease through 2027, it is reasonable
to conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels
E:\FR\FM\04JAP1.SGM
04JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules
in this area will also continue to
decrease through 2027.
Thus, EPA believes that there is
ample justification to conclude that the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area should be
redesignated, even taking into
consideration the emissions of other
precursors potentially relevant to PM2.5.
After consideration of the D.C. Circuit’s
January 4, 2013 decision, and for the
reasons set forth in this notice, EPA
proposes to approve the state’s revised
attainment inventory into the previously
approved maintenance plan.
Based on the information summarized
above, Ohio has adequately
demonstrated maintenance of the 1997
PM2.5 standard in this area for a period
extending in excess of ten years from
expected final action on Ohio’s
redesignation request. EPA finds that
currently approved plan will provide for
maintenance.
d. Monitoring Network
Ohio’s approved maintenance plan
includes additional elements. Ohio’s
plan includes a commitment to continue
to operate its EPA-approved monitoring
network, as necessary to demonstrate
ongoing compliance with the NAAQS.
As detailed above, there are nine
monitors measuring PM2.5
concentrations in the CincinnatiHamilton area, and eight of the nine are
operated by Ohio. The one other
monitor is located in Kentucky.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
Ohio remains obligated to continue to
quality-assure monitoring data and enter
all data into the AQS in accordance
with Federal guidelines. Ohio will use
these data, supplemented with
additional information as necessary, to
assure that the area continues to attain
the standard. Ohio will also continue to
develop and submit periodic emission
inventories as required by the Federal
Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule
(67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002) to track
future levels of emissions. Both of these
actions will help to verify continued
attainment in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58.
f. Contingency Plan
The contingency plan provisions are
designed to promptly correct or prevent
a violation of the NAAQS that might
occur after redesignation of an area to
attainment. Section 175A of the CAA
requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to assure that the
state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan
should identify the contingency
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jan 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and
implementation of the contingency
measures, and a time limit for action by
the state. The state should also identify
specific indicators to be used to
determine when the contingency
measures need to be adopted and
implemented. The maintenance plan
must include a requirement that the
state will implement all pollution
control measures that were contained in
the SIP before redesignation of the area
to attainment. See section 175A(d) of
the CAA. As described above in section
III.4, Ohio’s previously approved
maintenance plan includes all necessary
contingency measures required under
section 175A(d). See 76 FR 80253.
Ohio further commits to conduct
ongoing review of its data, and if
monitored concentrations or emissions
are trending upward, Ohio commits to
take appropriate steps to avoid a
violation if possible. Ohio commits to
continue implementing SIP
requirements upon and after
redesignation.
EPA believes that Ohio’s approved
contingency measures, as well as the
commitment to continue implementing
any SIP requirements, satisfy the
pertinent requirements of section
175A(d).
As required by section 175A(b) of the
CAA, Ohio commits to submit to EPA
an updated PM2.5 maintenance plan
eight years after redesignation of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area to cover an
additional ten year period beyond the
initial ten year maintenance period. As
required by section 175A of the CAA,
Ohio has also committed to retain the
PM2.5 control measures contained in the
SIP prior to redesignation.
For all of the reasons set forth above,
EPA determines that the approved
maintenance plan is still applicable and
meets all the contingency plan
requirements of CAA section 175A.
5. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
(MVEBs) for the Mobile Source
Contribution to PM2.5 and NOX
a. How are MVEBs developed and what
are the MVEBs for the CincinnatiHamilton area?
Under the CAA, states are required to
submit, at various times, control strategy
SIP revisions and maintenance plans for
PM2.5 nonattainment areas and for areas
seeking redesignation to attainment of
the PM2.5 standard. These emission
control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP
and attainment demonstration SIP
revisions) and maintenance plans create
MVEBs based on on-road mobile source
emissions for criteria pollutants and/or
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
803
their precursors to address pollution
from on-road transportation sources.
The MVEBs are the portions of the total
allowable emissions that are allocated to
highway and transit vehicle use that,
together with emissions from other
sources in the area, will provide for
attainment, RFP, or maintenance, as
applicable.
Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an
area seeking a redesignation to
attainment is established for the last
year of the maintenance plan and could
also be established for an interim year
or years. The MVEB serves as a ceiling
on emissions from an area’s planned
transportation system. The MVEB
concept is further explained in the
preamble to the November 24, 1993
transportation conformity rule (58 FR
62188).
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new
transportation plans and transportation
improvement programs (TIPs) must be
evaluated to determine if they conform
to the purpose of the area’s SIP.
Conformity to the SIP means that
transportation activities will not cause
new air quality violations, worsen
existing air quality violations, or delay
timely attainment of the NAAQS or any
required interim milestone. If a
transportation plan or TIP does not
conform, most new transportation
projects that would expand the capacity
of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth
EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for
demonstrating and assuring conformity
of such transportation activities to a SIP.
When reviewing SIP revisions
containing MVEBs, including
attainment strategies, rate-of-progress
plans, and maintenance plans, EPA
must affirmatively find adequate and/or
approve the MVEBs for use in
determining transportation conformity
before the MVEBs can be used. Once
EPA affirmatively approves and/or finds
the submitted MVEBs to be adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, the
MVEBs must be used by state and
Federal agencies in determining
whether proposed transportation plans
and TIPs conform to the SIP as required
by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA’s
substantive criteria for determining the
adequacy of MVEBs are set out in 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4). Additionally, to
approve a MVEB, EPA must complete a
thorough review of the SIP and
conclude that the SIP will achieve its
overall purpose. In this case, EPA must
review Ohio’s PM2.5 maintenance plan
and conclude that it will provide for
maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard in the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area.
E:\FR\FM\04JAP1.SGM
04JAP1
804
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
The maintenance plans previously
submitted by Ohio for the area
contained PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the
area for the year 2021. Ohio calculated
the MVEBs using MOVES2010. These
approved budgets are used in future
conformity determinations and regional
emissions analyses prepared by the OKI,
and will have to be based on the use of
MOVES2010 or the most recent version
of MOVES required to be used in
transportation conformity
determinations.10 The state has
determined the 2021 MVEBs for the
combined Ohio and Indiana portions of
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to be
1,241.19 tpy for primary PM2.5 and
21,747.71 tpy for NOX. The Ohio and
Indiana portion of the area included
‘‘safety margins’’ as provided for in 40
CFR 93.124(a) (described below) of
112.84 tpy for primary PM2.5 and
2,836.65 tpy for NOX in the 2021
MVEBs, respectively, to provide for onroad mobile source growth. Ohio did
not provide emission budgets for SO2,
VOCs, and ammonia because it
concluded, consistent with EPA’s
presumptions regarding these
precursors, that emissions of these
precursors from on-road motor vehicles
are not significant contributors to the
area’s PM2.5 air quality problem.
In the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, the
motor vehicle budgets including the
safety margins and motor vehicle
emission projections for both NOX and
PM2.5 are equal to the levels in the
attainment year.
EPA has reviewed the previously
approved budgets for 2021 including the
added safety margins using the
conformity rule’s adequacy criteria
found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and the
conformity rule’s requirements for
safety margins found at 40 CFR
93.124(a). EPA has reviewed the
approved budgets and the maintenance
plan, and EPA is determining that the
2021 direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets,
including the requested safety margins
for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, are
adequate for use in conformity.
b. What action is EPA taking on the
submitted motor vehicle emissions
budgets?
EPA previously approved Ohio’s
MVEBs for use to determine
transportation conformity in the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area and these
budgets remain applicable. EPA has
10 EPA described the circumstances under which
an area would be required to use MOVES in
transportation conformity determinations in its
March 2, 2010, Federal Register notice officially
releasing MOVES2010 for use in SIPs and
transportation conformity determinations. (75 FR
9413)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jan 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
determined that the area can maintain
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS for the relevant maintenance
period and no changes to the plan have
been made. See 76 FR 80253.
6. Comprehensive Emissions Inventory
As discussed above, section 172(c)(3)
of the CAA requires areas to submit a
comprehensive emissions inventory
including direct PM and all four
precursors (SO2, NOX, VOCs, and
ammonia). EPA approved the Ohio 2005
base year emissions inventory on
December 23, 2011 (76 FR 80253). This
previously approved base year
emissions inventory detailed emissions
of PM2.5, SO2, and NOX for 2005.
Emissions inventories for VOCs and
ammonia from 2007, taken from the RIA
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, have been
added as part of this submittal in
accordance with the provisions of
subpart 4 (Title I, Part D) of the CAA.
Emissions contained in the submittal
cover the general source categories of
point sources, area sources, on-road
mobile sources, and nonroad mobile
sources.
Based upon EPA’s previous action
and 2007 emissions inventory for VOCs
and ammonia, the emissions inventory
was complete and accurate, and met the
requirement of CAA section 172(c)(3).
IV. EPA’s Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to take several
actions related to redesignation of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA has previously approved Ohio’s
PM2.5 maintenance plan and MVEBs for
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. EPA is
proposing to determine that this plan
and budgets are still applicable.
EPA has previously approved the
2005 primary PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 base
year emissions inventory. EPA is
proposing to approve Ohio’s updated
emissions inventory which includes
emissions inventories for VOCs and
ammonia from 2007. EPA is proposing
that Ohio meets the emissions inventory
requirement under section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii).
EPA is proposing to approve the
RACM/RACT portion of Ohio’s prior
Cincinnati-Hamilton area attainment
plan SIP revision as providing adequate
RACM/RACT consistent with the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.1010(b),
because Ohio has demonstrated with a
RACM/RACT analysis that no further
control measures would advance the
attainment date in the area.
EPA is proposing that Ohio meets the
requirements for redesignation of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment
of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS under
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is
thus proposing to grant Ohio’s request
to change the designation of its portion
of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area from
nonattainment to attainment for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
If finalized, approval of the
redesignation request would change the
official designation of the Ohio portion
of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40
CFR part 81, from nonattainment to
attainment. If finalized, EPA would
determine that the previously approved
maintenance plan is still applicable to
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an
area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a
maintenance plan under section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the
status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory
requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to
attainment does not in and of itself
create any new requirements, but rather
results in the applicability of
requirements contained in the CAA for
areas that have been redesignated to
attainment. Moreover, the Administrator
is required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and, if
finalized, will not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this actions:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
E:\FR\FM\04JAP1.SGM
04JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2017 / Proposed Rules
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because
redesignation is an action that affects
the status of a geographical area and
does not impose any new regulatory
requirements on tribes, impact any
existing sources of air pollution on
tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance
of ozone national ambient air quality
standards in tribal lands.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter.
40 CFR Part 81
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: December 13, 2016.
Robert Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2016–31635 Filed 1–3–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Jan 03, 2017
Jkt 241001
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
49 CFR Part 1300
[Docket No. EP 528 (Sub-No. 1); Docket No.
EP 665 (Sub-No. 1)]
Publication Requirements for
Agricultural Products; Rail
Transportation of Grain, Rate
Regulation Review
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of proposed rulemaking;
policy statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Through this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, the Surface
Transportation Board (Board or STB)
proposes amendments to its regulations
governing the publication, availability,
and retention for public inspection of
rail carrier rate and service terms for
agricultural products and fertilizer. The
Board also clarifies its policies on
standing and aggregation of claims as
they relate to rate complaint procedures.
DATES: Comments are due February 21,
2017; replies are due by March 20, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted either via the Board’s e-filing
format or in the traditional paper
format. Any person using e-filing should
attach a document and otherwise
comply with the instructions at the E–
FILING link on the Board’s Web site, at
https://www.stb.gov. Any person
submitting a filing in the traditional
paper format should send an original
and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation
Board, Attn: Docket No. EP 528 (SubNo. 1), 395 E Street SW., Washington,
DC 20423–0001. Copies of written
comments will be available for viewing
and self-copying at the Board’s Public
Docket Room, Room 131, and will be
posted to the Board’s Web site.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah Fancher at (202) 245–0355.
Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
November 2006, the Board held a
hearing in Rail Transportation of Grain,
Docket No. EP 665, as a forum for
interested persons to provide views and
information about grain transportation
markets. The hearing was prompted by
concerns regarding rates and service
issues related to the movement of grain
raised by Members of Congress, grain
producers, and other stakeholders. In
January 2008, the Board closed that
proceeding, reasoning that guidelines
for simplified rate procedures had
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
805
recently been adopted 1 and that those
procedures would provide grain
shippers with a new avenue for rate
relief. Rail Transp. of Grain, EP 665, slip
op. at 5 (STB served Jan. 14, 2008). The
Board noted, however, that it would
continue to monitor the relationship
between carriers and grain interests, and
that, if future regulatory action were
warranted, it would open a new
proceeding. Id. at 5.
In Rate Regulation Reforms, EP 715
(STB served July 25, 2012), the Board
proposed several changes to its rate
reasonableness rules. However, based
on the comments received in that docket
from grain shipper interests, which in
part stated that the proposed changes
did not provide meaningful relief to
grain shippers, the Board commenced a
separate proceeding in Rail
Transportation of Grain, Rate
Regulation Review, Docket No. EP 665
(Sub-No. 1) in December 2013 to deal
specifically with the concerns of grain
shippers. The Board invited public
comment on how to ensure that the
Board’s existing rate complaint
procedures are accessible to grain
shippers and provide effective
protection against unreasonable freight
rail transportation rates. The Board also
sought input from interested parties on
grain shippers’ ability to effectively seek
relief for unreasonable rates, including
proposals for modifying existing
procedures, or new alternative rate relief
methodologies, should they be
necessary. The Board received
comments and replies from numerous
parties.
On May 8, 2015, the Board announced
that it would hold a public hearing, and
invited parties to discuss rate
reasonableness accessibility for grain
shippers, as well as other issues,
including: Whether the Board should
allow multiple agricultural farmers and
other agricultural shippers to aggregate
their distinct rate claims against the
same carrier into a single proceeding,
and whether the disclosure requirement
for agricultural tariff rates should be
modified to allow for increased
transparency. The public hearing was
held on June 10, 2015, and the Board
received post-hearing supplemental
comments from interested parties
through June 24, 2015.
Although much of the commentary
and testimony received pertained to
existing or proposed rate relief
methodologies for agricultural
commodity shippers, the comments and
1 Simplified Standards for Rail Rate Cases, EP
646 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served Sept. 5, 2007), aff’d
sub nom. CSX Transp., Inc. v. STB, 568 F.3d 236
(D.C. Cir.), vacated in part on reh’g, 584 F.3d 1076
(D.C. Cir. 2009).
E:\FR\FM\04JAP1.SGM
04JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 792-805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31635]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0479; FRL-9957-60-Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-IN-KY Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual
Standard for Fine Particulate Matter
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
redesignate the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-IN-KY,
nonattainment area (hereafter, ``the Cincinnati-Hamilton area'') to
attainment for the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
annual national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standard). The
Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area includes Butler, Clermont,
Hamilton, and Warren Counties. Because EPA has determined that the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area is attaining the annual PM2.5
standard, EPA is proposing to redesignate the area to attainment and
also proposing several additional related actions. EPA is proposing to
approve the Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)-Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) portion of Ohio's Cincinnati-
Hamilton area attainment plan SIP revision as providing adequate RACM/
RACT. EPA is proposing to approve an update to the Ohio state
implementation plan (SIP), by updating the state's approved plan for
maintaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS through 2027. EPA
previously approved the base year emissions inventory for the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area, and is proposing to approve Ohio's updated
emission inventory which includes emission inventories for volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and ammonia. Ohio's approved maintenance plan
submission includes a budget for the mobile source contribution of
PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) to the
Cincinnati-Hamilton Ohio PM2.5 area for transportation
conformity purposes, which EPA is proposing to approve and update. EPA
is proposing to take these actions in accordance with the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and EPA's implementation rule regarding the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 3, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2016-0479 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section. For the
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Ko, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7947, ko.joseph@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is
arranged as follows:
Contents
I. Background
II. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment?
III. What is EPA's analysis of the state's request?
1. Attainment
2. Section 110 and Part D Requirements, and Approval SIP under
Section 110(k) (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v))
3. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions (Section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii))
4. Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA (Section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv))
5. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEBs) for the Mobile Source
Contribution to PM2.5 and NOX
6. Comprehensive Emissions Inventory
IV. EPA's Proposed Actions
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
The first air quality standards for PM2.5 were
promulgated on July 18, 1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated an annual
standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) of
ambient air, based on a three-year average of the annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations at each monitoring site.
On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, EPA published air quality area
designations for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard based on air
quality data for calendar years 2001-2003. In that rulemaking, EPA
designated the Cincinnati-Hamilton area (the Ohio portion being Butler,
Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties) as nonattainment for the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard.
In this proposed redesignation, EPA takes into account two
decisions of the D.C. Circuit. On August 21, 2012, in EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), the D.C. Circuit
vacated and remanded the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and
ordered EPA to continue administering the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) ``pending . . . development of a valid replacement.'' EME Homer
City at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all
[[Page 793]]
petitions for rehearing in the case on January 24, 2013. In the second
decision, on January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the
``Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586,
April 25, 2007) and the ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR)
Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)'' final rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008). Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
II. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment?
The CAA sets forth the requirements for redesignating a
nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA allows for redesignation provided that: (1) The Administrator
determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS based on
current air quality data; (2) the Administrator has fully approved an
applicable SIP 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, Federal air pollution control
regulations, or other permanent and enforceable emission reductions;
(4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the
area meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the
state containing the area has met all requirements applicable to the
area for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the
CAA.
III. What is EPA's analysis of the state's request?
EPA is proposing to redesignate the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-
Hamilton area to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
and is proposing to approve updates to Ohio's maintenance plan for the
area and other related SIP revisions. EPA is also proposing to approve
Ohio's RACM/RACT analysis. The bases for these proposed actions follow.
1. Attainment
In accordance with section 179(c) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7509(c) and
40 CFR 51.1004(c), EPA is proposing to determine that the Cincinnati-
Hamilton area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This
proposed determination is based upon complete, quality-assured, and
certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2013-2015 monitoring
period that shows this area has monitored attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the annual primary and
secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the annual arithmetic
mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50,
appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ at all relevant
monitoring sites in the area.
EPA has reviewed the ambient air quality monitoring data in the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area, consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR part
50, appendix T. EPA's review focused on data recorded in the EPA Air
Quality System (AQS) database for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area for
PM2.5 nonattainment area from 2013-2015.
The Cincinnati-Hamilton area has nine monitors located in Butler
(OH), Hamilton (OH), and Campbell (KY) Counties that reported design
values from 2013-2015 for PM2.5 that ranged from 9.5 to 11.2
[mu]g/m\3\ for the 1997 annual standard. The data are summarized shown
in Table 1 below.
There are three additional monitor sites in Butler County that are
not listed in Table 1 because the data from these sites are not used
for redesignation purposes. On October 31, 2014, EPA determined that
site 39-017-0020 was located within the immediate area of several
facilities, and that the monitoring data from the site would no longer
be compared to the annual PM2.5 standard. On February 5,
2015, monitor site 39-017-0022 in Bulter County became active, but
since it is a ``special purpose monitor'', it cannot be used for
comparison to the NAAQS before 24 months, per 40 CFR 58.20.
Additionally, a new monitor site, 39-017-0016, became active in 2016
but it was not included in Ohio's analysis because it does not yet have
three years of valid data.
All monitors in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area recorded complete data
in accordance with criteria set forth by EPA in 40 CFR part 50 appendix
N, where a complete year of air quality data comprises four calendar
quarters, with each quarter containing data from at least 75% capture
of the scheduled sampling days. Data available are considered to be
sufficient for comparison to the NAAQS if three consecutive complete
years of data exist. Recently the state certified data for 2013-2015
show the area continues to attain the standard. Partial 2016 data for
all relevant monitors also support a finding that the area continues to
attain the standard.
Table 1--Annual PM2.5 Design Values for the Cincinnati-Hamilton Area for 2013-2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual design values ([mu]g/m\3\)
---------------------------------------------------------------
County/Site Year Average
---------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2014 2015 2013-2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butler, OH:
39-017-0003................................. 11.1 11.3 10.3 10.9
39-017-0016................................. 10.7 10.7 9.5 10.3
39-017-0019................................. 11 11.2 10.2 10.8
Hamilton, OH:
39-061-0006................................. 10.1 10.3 9.3 9.9
39-061-0014................................. 11.6 11.3 10.7 11.2
39-061-0040................................. 10.6 10.4 9.2 10.1
39-061-0042................................. 11.5 11.2 10.1 11
39-061-0010................................. 10.5 10.4 9.2 10
Campbell, KY:
21-037-3002................................. 9.6 9.7 9.4 * 9.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* less than 75% capture in one quarter at the primary monitor, but substitution using a secondary monitor was
completed resulting in an AQS 'valid' design value.
[[Page 794]]
Based on the information summarized above, EPA has found that the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS.
2. Section 110 and Part D Requirements, and Approval SIP Under Section
110(k) (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v))
We have determined that, under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP
requirements), Ohio has met all currently applicable SIP requirements
for purposes of redesignation for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. We are
also proposing to find, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v),
that the Ohio submittal meets all SIP requirements currently applicable
for purposes of redesignation under part D of title I of the CAA. In
addition, we are proposing to find, in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii), that all applicable requirements of the Ohio SIP for
purposes of redesignation have been approved. As discussed above, EPA
previously approved Ohio's 2005 emissions inventory as meeting the
section 172(c)(3) comprehensive emissions inventory requirement.
In making these proposed determinations, we have ascertained which
SIP requirements are applicable for purposes of redesignation, and
concluded that the Ohio SIP includes measures meeting those
requirements and that they are fully approved under section 110(k) of
the CAA.
a. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the general
requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the
implementation plan submitted by a state must have been adopted by the
state after reasonable public notice and hearing, and, among other
things, must: Include enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the
requirements of the CAA; provide for establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to
monitor ambient air quality; provide for implementation of a source
permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any
stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; include
provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and part D, NSR permit programs; include criteria
for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and
reporting; include provisions for air quality modeling; and provide for
public and local agency participation in planning and emission control
rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain measures
to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. EPA believes that the requirements
linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation are the
relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular
area in the state. Thus, we believe that these requirements should not
be construed as the applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation.
Further, we believe that the other section 110 elements described
above that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and
not linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to
these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We
conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements that are
linked with a particular area's designation are the relevant measures
which we may consider in evaluating a redesignation request. See
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-
53176, October 10, 1996) and (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and
Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See
also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour ozone
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19,
2001).
We have reviewed the Ohio SIP and have concluded that it meets the
general SIP requirements under section 110 of the CAA to the extent
they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA has previously
approved provisions of Ohio's SIP addressing section 110 requirements
(including provisions addressing particulate matter), at 40 CFR
52.1870.
On December 5, 2007, Ohio made a submittal addressing
``infrastructure SIP'' elements required under CAA section 110(a)(2).
EPA proposed approval of the December 5, 2007, submittal on April 28,
2011, at 76 FR 23757 and published final approval on July 13, 2011, at
76 FR 41075.
The remaining parts of the infrastructure SIPs required by section
110(a)(2) are not relevant to this redesignation, and are statewide
requirements that are not linked to the PM2.5 nonattainment
status of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Therefore, EPA believes that
these SIP elements are not applicable requirements for purposes of
review of the state's PM2.5 redesignation request.
b. Part D Requirements
EPA has determined that, upon approval of the base year emissions
inventories discussed in section III.6 of this rulemaking, the Ohio SIP
will meet the applicable SIP requirements for the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D of the CAA.
Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the CAA, sets forth
the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment
areas. Subpart 4 of part D, found in sections 189 of the CAA, sets
forth nonattainment requirements applicable for particulate matter
nonattainment areas.
(i) RACM/RACT Requirements Under Section 172(c)(1)
Section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan ``provide for
the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as
expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions
from the existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the
adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology),
and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air
quality standards.'' The PM2.5 Implementation Rule (72 FR
20586) requires that the subpart 1 RACM portion of the attainment plan
SIP revision include the list of potential measures that a state
considered and additional information sufficient to show that the state
has met all requirements for the determination of what constitutes RACM
in a specific nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 51.1010(a). Any measures
that are necessary to meet these requirements that are not already
either federally promulgated, part of the SIP, or otherwise creditable
in SIPs must be submitted in enforceable form as part of a state's
attainment plan SIP revision for the area.
In 1972, 1980, and 1991, Ohio promulgated RACM rules for
particulate emissions from stationary sources. Ohio also has RACT rules
found in OAC Chapter 3745-17. Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium
(LADCO), in consultation with two contractors, performed a series of
studies exploring control measures for reducing both
[[Page 795]]
ozone precursors and PM2.5 precursors in Ohio, Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Photochemical modeling was then
conducted to assess the air quality benefits of the candidate control
measures. In its attainment demonstration submitted on July 18, 2008,
Ohio demonstrated that attainment would be achieved in the Cincinnati-
Hamilton area by 2009, based on the modeling conducted by the LADCO
project team. Because of the projected 2009 attainment date, it would
not have been reasonably possible or practicable for Ohio to develop
RACM/RACT requirements, promulgate regulations and implement a control
program prior to 2009. Ohio concluded that its RACM/RACT analysis,
based on LADCO modeling, demonstrates that current control measures in
Ohio satisfy RACM/RACT for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard.
EPA has reviewed Ohio's RACM/RACT analysis and agrees that it
indicates that no other reasonably available measures were available,
or necessary, to attain or advance attainment of the standard. Because
Ohio has demonstrated with modeling that no further control measures
would advance the attainment date in the area, EPA is proposing to
approve Ohio's RACM/RACT portion of the attainment plan SIP revision as
providing adequate RACM/RACT consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR
51.1010(b).
EPA previously redesignated the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to
attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, predicated in
part on a finding that the RACM/RACT requirement (interpreted as
reflecting those reasonable measures needed to attain the standard) was
not an applicable requirement for purposes of redesignation of areas
already meeting the standard. EPA has long interpreted that subpart 1
nonattainment planning requirements, including RACM, are not
``applicable for purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) when an
area is attaining the NAAQS, and, therefore, need not be approved into
the SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. See 76 FR 80258.
On July 14, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit (Sixth Circuit) issued an opinion in Sierra Club v. EPA, 793
F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2015), vacating EPA's redesignation of the Indiana
and Ohio portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on the basis that EPA had not approved
subpart 1 RACM for the area into the SIP.\1\ The Sixth Circuit vacated
the redesignation of the Ohio and Indiana portion of the area based on
its view that RACM/RACT must be considered an applicable requirement
for designation purposes. Consistent with that ruling, EPA is now
finding that Ohio has satisfied this applicable requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Court issued its initial decision in the case on March
18, 2015, and subsequently issued an amended opinion on July 14
after appeals for rehearing en banc and panel rehearing had been
filed. The amended opinion revised some of the legal aspects of the
Court's analysis of the relevant statutory provisions (section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and section 172(c)(1)), but the overall holding of
the opinion was unaltered. On March 28, 2016, the Supreme Court
denied a petition for certiorari from Ohio requesting review of the
Sixth Circuit's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Other Section 172 Requirements
For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the
applicable section 172 SIP requirements for the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of
the requirements contained in section 172 can be found in the General
Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).
Under section 172, states with nonattainment areas must submit
plans providing for timely attainment and meeting a variety of other
requirements. However, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c), EPA's
determination that the area has attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard suspends the requirement to submit certain
planning SIPs related to attainment, including: Attainment
demonstration requirements, the RFP and attainment demonstration
requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and (6) and 182(b)(1) of the CAA,
and the requirement for contingency measures of section 172(c)(9) of
the CAA.
As a result, the only remaining requirements under section 172 to
be considered are the emissions inventory requirement under section
172(c)(3), and the RACM/RACT requirement of section 172(c)(1) per the
6th circuit decision. As discussed previously, EPA is proposing to
approve the VOCs and ammonia emissions inventories that Ohio submitted
as satisfying the section 172(c)(3) requirement, and existing control
measures as satisfying RACM/RACT requirements under section 172(c)(1).
No SIP provisions applicable for redesignation of the Cincinnati-
Hamilton area are currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or
partially approved. Ohio currently has a fully approved SIP for all
requirements, as applicable for purposes of redesignation under the
Sixth Circuit's Sierra Club decision.
Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all nonattainment areas to
provide for the implementation of RACM as expeditiously as practicable
and to provide for attainment of the primary NAAQS. EPA interprets this
requirement to impose a duty on all states to consider all available
control measures for all nonattainment areas and to adopt and implement
such measures as are reasonably available for implementation in each
area as components of the area's attainment demonstration.
As noted above in the previous section, the Sixth Circuit concluded
that ``a State seeking redesignation `shall provide for the
implementation' of RACM/RACT, even if those measures are not strictly
necessary to demonstrate attainment with the PM2.5 NAAQS. .
. . If a State has not done so, EPA cannot `fully approve[]' the area's
SIP, and redesignation to attainment status is improper.'' Sierra Club,
793 F.3d at 670.
EPA is adhering to the Sixth Circuit's decision. Ohio has
demonstrated that no further control measures would be necessary to
advance the attainment date in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, and EPA is
proposing to approve existing control measures as satisfying RACM/RACT
requirements under section 172(c)(1). A further discussion on RACM/RACT
requirements can be found in the previous section entitled ``RACM/RACT
Requirements Under Section 172(c)(1).''
The reasonable further progress (RFP) requirement under section
172(c)(2) is defined as progress that must be made toward attainment.
This requirement is not relevant for purposes of the Cincinnati-
Hamilton redesignation because the area has monitored attainment of the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. (General Preamble, 57 FR 13564).
See also 40 CFR 51.918. The requirement to submit the section 172(c)(9)
contingency measures is similarly not applicable for purposes of
redesignation. Id.
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. Ohio
submitted a 2005 base year emissions inventory in the required
attainment plan, and also updated the emissions inventory with VOCs and
ammonia emissions from 2007. EPA previously approved the 2005 base year
emissions inventory (76 FR 64825), and is proposing to approve the
emissions inventory for VOCs and ammonia.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in an
area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the
construction and operation of new and modified major
[[Page 796]]
stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA approved
Ohio's current NSR program on January 10, 2003 (68 FR 1366), but has
not approved updates since that time. Nonetheless, since PSD
requirements will apply after redesignation, the area need not have a
fully-approved NSR program for purposes of redesignation, provided that
the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A
detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October
14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' Ohio has demonstrated that
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area will be able to maintain the standard
without part D NSR in effect; therefore, the state need not have a
fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the
redesignation request. The state's PSD program will become effective in
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area upon redesignation to attainment. See
rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids,
Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).
Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures
necessary to provide for attainment of the standard. Because attainment
has been reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for
attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we have found that
Ohio's SIP meets the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) for
purposes of redesignation.
(iii) Section 176 Conformity Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federally-supported or funded activities,
including highway projects, conform to the air quality planning goals
in the applicable SIPs. The requirement to determine conformity applies
to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or
approved under Title 23 of the U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act
(transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally-supported
or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation
conformity regulations must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement, and enforceability,
which EPA promulgated pursuant to CAA requirements.
EPA approved Ohio's transportation conformity SIPs on March 2, 2015
(80 FR 11134). In April 2010, EPA promulgated changes to 40 CFR 51.851,
eliminating the requirement for states to maintain a general conformity
SIP. Following this promulgation, EPA granted Ohio's request to remove
its general conformity regulations from the SIP. See 80 FR 29968. EPA
confirms that Ohio has met the applicable conformity requirements under
section 176.
(iv) Subpart 4
On January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,
the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the ``Final Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final rule (73 FR
28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, ``1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule''). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court found
that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant
to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part D of
title I of the CAA, rather than the particulate-matter-specific
provisions of subpart 4 of part D of title I.
EPA has longstanding general guidance that interprets the 1990
amendments to the CAA, making recommendations to states for meeting the
statutory requirements for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See, ``State
Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title
I of the Clear Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57 FR 13498 (April 16,
1992) (the ``General Preamble''). In the General Preamble, EPA
discussed the relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements,
and pointed out that subpart 1 requirements were, to an extent,
``subsumed by, or integrally related to, the more specific PM-10
requirements.'' 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 1992). The subpart 1
requirements include, among other things, provisions for attainment
demonstrations, RACM, RFP, emissions inventories, and contingency
measures.
For the purposes of this redesignation, in order to identify any
additional requirements which would apply under subpart 4, we are
considering the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to be a ``moderate''
PM2.5 nonattainment area. Under section 188 of the CAA, all
areas designated nonattainment areas under subpart 4 would initially be
classified by operation of law as ``moderate'' nonattainment areas, and
would remain moderate nonattainment areas unless and until EPA
reclassifies the area as a ``serious'' nonattainment area. Accordingly,
EPA believes that it is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the
potential impact of subpart 4 requirements to those that would be
applicable to moderate nonattainment areas.
Section 189(a) and (c) of subpart 4 applies to moderate
nonattainment areas and includes the following: (1) An approved permit
program for construction of new and modified major stationary sources
(section 189(a)(1)(A)); (2) an attainment demonstration (section
189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4)
quantitative milestones demonstrating RFP toward attainment by the
applicable attainment date (section 189(c)).
The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section
189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit provisions
requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM10, without adding
to them. Consequently, EPA believes that section 189(a)(1)(A) does not
itself impose for redesignation purposes any additional requirements
for moderate areas beyond those contained in subpart 1.\2\ In any
event, in the context of redesignation, EPA has long relied on the
interpretation that a fully approved nonattainment new source review
program is not considered an applicable requirement for redesignation,
provided the area can maintain the standard with a PSD program after
redesignation. A detailed rationale for this view is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New Source Review
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' See
also rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7,
1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7,
1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand
Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The potential effect of section 189(e) on section
189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this redesignation is
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under
subpart 4,\3\ when EPA evaluates a redesignation request under subpart
1 and/or 4, any area that is attaining the PM2.5 standard is
viewed as having satisfied the attainment planning
[[Page 797]]
requirements for these subparts. For redesignations, EPA has for many
years interpreted attainment-linked requirements as not applicable for
areas attaining the standard. In the General Preamble, EPA stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, milestone
requirements, contingency measures.
The requirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request for
redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality
data for the area must show that the area has already attained.
Showing that the State will make RFP towards attainment will,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
therefore, have no meaning at that point.
``General Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990''; (57 FR 13498, 13564, April 16, 1992).
The General Preamble also explained that:
[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring RFP
and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements no longer
apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible for
redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans . . .
provides specific requirements for contingency measures that
effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for
these areas.
Id.
EPA similarly stated in its September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum
(Calcagni memorandum) that, ``[t]he requirements for reasonable further
progress and other measures needed for attainment will not apply for
redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not attaining
the standard.''
Elsewhere in this action, EPA proposes to determine that the area
has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. Under its
longstanding interpretation, EPA is proposing to determine here that
the area meets the attainment-related plan requirements of subparts 1
and 4. Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude that the requirements to
submit an attainment demonstration under 189(a)(1)(B), a RACM
determination under sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(c), a RFP
demonstration under section 189(c)(1), and contingency measure
requirements under section 172(c)(9) are satisfied for purposes of
evaluating the redesignation request.
PM2.5 pollution can be emitted directly from a source
(primary PM2.5) or formed secondarily through chemical
reactions in the atmosphere involving precursor pollutants emitted from
a variety of sources. Sulfates are a type of secondary particulate
formed from SO2 emissions from power plants and industrial
facilities. Nitrates, another common type of secondary particulate, are
formed from combustion emissions of NOX from power plants,
mobile sources, and other combustion sources.
CAA section 189(e) specifically provides that control requirements
for major stationary sources of direct PM10 shall also apply
to PM10 precursors from those sources, except where EPA
determines that major stationary sources of such precursors ``do not
contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the
standard in the area.''
For a number of reasons, EPA believes that this proposed
redesignation of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area is consistent with the
Court's decision on this aspect of subpart 4. First, while the Court,
citing section 189(e), stated that ``for a PM10 area
governed by subpart 4, a precursor is `presumptively regulated,' '' the
Court expressly declined to decide the specific challenge to EPA's 1997
PM2.5 implementation rule provisions regarding ammonia and
VOCs as precursors. The Court had no occasion to reach whether and how
it was substantively necessary to regulate any specific precursor in a
particular PM2.5 nonattainment area, and did not address
what might be necessary for purposes of acting upon a redesignation
request.
The Cincinnati-Hamilton area has attained the standard without any
specific additional controls of VOCs and ammonia emissions from any
sources in the area.
Precursors in subpart 4 are specifically regulated under the
provisions of section 189(e), which requires, with important
exceptions, control requirements for major stationary sources of
PM10 precursors.\4\ As explained below, we do not believe
that any additional controls of ammonia and VOCs are required in the
context of this redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for purposes of
demonstrating attainment as expeditiously as practicable, a state is
required to evaluate all economically and technologically feasible
control measures for direct PM emissions and precursor emissions,
and adopt those measures that are deemed reasonably available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the General Preamble, EPA discusses its approach to implementing
section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538-13542. With regard to precursor
regulation under section 189(e), the General Preamble explicitly stated
that control of VOCs under other CAA requirements may suffice to
relieve a state from the need to adopt precursor controls under section
189(e) (57 FR 13542). EPA proposes to determine that Ohio has met the
provisions of section 189(e) with respect to ammonia and VOCs as
precursors. This proposed supplemental determination is based on our
findings that: (1) The Cincinnati-Hamilton area contains no major
stationary sources of ammonia, and (2) existing major stationary
sources of VOCs are adequately controlled under other provisions of the
CAA regulating the ozone NAAQS.\5\ In the alternative, EPA proposes to
determine that, under the express exception provisions of section
189(e), and in the context of the redesignation of the area, which is
attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, at present ammonia
and VOCs precursors from major stationary sources do not contribute
significantly to levels exceeding the 1997 PM2.5 standard in
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. See 57 FR 13539-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Cincinnati-Hamilton area has reduced VOC emissions
through the implementation of various SIP approved VOC control
programs and various on-road and nonroad motor vehicle control
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule
provisions in 40 CFR 51.1002 were not directed at evaluation of
PM2.5 precursors in the context of redesignation, but at SIP
plans and control measures required to bring a nonattainment area into
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. By contrast,
redesignation to attainment primarily requires the area to have already
attained due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and to
demonstrate that controls in place can continue to maintain the
standard. Thus, even if we regard the Court's January 4, 2013, decision
as calling for ``presumptive regulation'' of ammonia and VOCs for
PM2.5 under the attainment planning provisions of subpart 4,
those provisions do not require additional controls of these precursors
for an area that already qualifies for redesignation. Nor does EPA
believe that requiring Ohio to address precursors differently than it
has already would result in a different redesignation outcome.
Although, as EPA has emphasized, its consideration here of
precursor requirements under subpart 4 is in the context of a
redesignation to attainment, EPA's existing interpretation of subpart 4
requirements with respect to precursors in attainment plans for
PM10 contemplates that states may develop attainment plans
that regulate only those precursors that are necessary for purposes of
attainment in the area in question, i.e., states may determine that
only certain precursors need be regulated for attainment and control
purposes.\6\ Courts have upheld this
[[Page 798]]
approach to the requirements of subpart 4 for PM10.\7\ EPA
believes that application of this approach to PM2.5
precursors under subpart 4 is reasonable. Because the Cincinnati-
Hamilton area has already attained the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS with its current approach to regulation of PM2.5
precursors, EPA believes that, in the context of this redesignation,
there is no need to revisit the attainment control strategy with
respect to the treatment of precursors. Even if the Court's decision is
construed to impose an obligation to consider additional precursors
under subpart 4 in evaluating this redesignation request, it would not
affect EPA's approval here of Ohio's request for redesignation of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Moreover, the state has shown, and EPA is
proposing to determine, that attainment in this area is due to
permanent and enforceable emissions reductions on all precursors
necessary to provide for continued attainment. It follows that no
further control of additional precursors is necessary. Accordingly, EPA
does not view the January 4, 2013, Court decision as precluding
redesignation of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans for California--San Joaquin Valley PM-10 Nonattainment Area;
Serious Area Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual PM-10
Standards,'' 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) (approving a PM10
attainment plan that impose controls on direct PM10 and
NOX emissions and did not impose controls on
SO2, VOC, or ammonia emissions).
\7\ See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et al., 423
F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA concludes that the area has met all applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)
and (v).
c. Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
Upon final approval of Ohio's comprehensive VOCs and ammonia
emissions inventories, EPA will have fully approved the Ohio SIP for
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on
prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (See page 3 of
the Calcagni memorandum; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v.
Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
426 (6th Cir. 2001)) plus any additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25413, 25426 (May
12, 2003). Since the passage of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has adopted and
submitted, and EPA has fully approved, provisions addressing various
required SIP elements under particulate matter standards. In this
action, EPA is approving Ohio's VOCs and ammonia comprehensive
emissions inventories for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area as meeting the
requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
3. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions (Section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii))
EPA believes that Ohio has demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area is due to permanent
and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation
of the SIPs, Federal measures, and other state-adopted measures.
In making this demonstration, Ohio has calculated the change in
emissions between 2005, one of the years used to designate the area as
nonattainment, and 2008, one of the years the Cincinnati-Hamilton area
monitored attainment. The reduction in emissions and the corresponding
improvement in air quality over this time period can be attributed to a
number of regulatory control measures that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area
and contributing areas have implemented, as discussed below.
a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls Implemented
The following is a discussion of permanent and enforceable measures
that have been implemented in the area:
i. Federal Emission Control Measures
Reductions in direct emissions of PM2.5 and in emissions
of PM2.5 precursors have occurred statewide and in upwind
areas as a result of Federal emission control measures, with additional
emission reductions expected to occur in the future. Federal emission
control measures include the following.
Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur
Standards. EPA finalized this Federal rule in February 2000. These
emission control requirements result in lower NOX and
SO2 emissions from new cars and light duty trucks, including
sport utility vehicles. Emission standards established under EPA's
rules became effective between 2004 and 2009. EPA has estimated that,
emissions of NOX from new vehicles have decreased by the
following percentages: Passenger cars (light duty vehicles)--77
percent; light duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility vehicles--86
percent; and, larger sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier
trucks--69 to 95 percent. EPA expects fleet-wide average emissions to
decline by similar percentages as new vehicles replace older vehicles.
The Tier 2 standards also reduced the sulfur content of gasoline by up
to 90 percent. VOCs emissions reductions will be approximately 12
percent for passenger cars; 18 percent for smaller SUVs, light trucks,
and minivans; and 15 percent for larger SUVs, vans, and heavier trucks.
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. EPA issued this rule in July 2000.
This rule, which was phased in between 2004 and 2007, includes
standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel. This rule is
estimated to reduce NOX emissions from diesel trucks and
buses by approximately 40 percent. The level of sulfur in highway
diesel fuel is also estimated to have dropped by 97 percent by mid-2006
due to this rule.
Nonroad Diesel Rule. In May 2004, EPA promulgated a new rule for
large nonroad diesel engines, such as those used in construction,
agriculture, and mining equipment, to be phased in between 2008 and
2014. Prior to 2006, nonroad diesel fuel averaged approximately 3,000
ppm sulfur. This rule limited nonroad diesel sulfur content to 15 ppm
by 2010. It is estimated that compliance with this rule has cut
emissions from nonroad diesel engines by more than 90%. This rule
achieved some emission reductions by 2008 and was fully implemented by
2010. The reduction in fuel sulfur content also yielded an immediate
reduction in sulfate particle emissions from all diesel vehicles.
ii. Control Measures in Contributing Areas
Given the significance of sulfates and nitrates in the Cincinnati-
Hamilton area, the area's air quality is strongly affected by regulated
emissions from power plants.
NOX SIP Call. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a
NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and 22
states to reduce emissions of NOX. Affected states were
required to comply with Phase I of the SIP Call beginning in 2004, and
Phase II beginning in 2007. Emission reductions resulting from
regulations developed in response to the NOX SIP Call are
permanent and enforceable.
CAIR and CSAPR. EPA proposed CAIR on January 30, 2004, at 69 FR
4566, promulgated CAIR on May 12, 2005, at 70 FR 25162, and promulgated
associated Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) on April 28, 2006, at 71
FR 25328, in order to reduce SO2 and NOX
emissions and improve air quality in many areas across the Eastern
United States. However, on July 11, 2008, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit or Court)
issued its decision to vacate and remand both CAIR and the associated
CAIR FIPs in their entirety (North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (D.C.
Cir. 2008)). EPA petitioned for a
[[Page 799]]
rehearing, and the Court issued an order remanding CAIR and the CAIR
FIPs to EPA without vacatur (North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C.
Cir. 2008)). The Court, thereby, left CAIR in place in order to
``temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR'' until
EPA replaced it with a rule consistent with the Court's opinion (id. at
1178). The Court directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's flaws'' consistent
with the July 11, 2008, opinion, but declined to impose a schedule on
EPA for completing this action (id).
On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's
remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and, thus, to address the
interstate transport of emissions contributing to nonattainment and
interfering with maintenance of the two air quality standards covered
by CAIR as well as the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR requires
substantial reductions of SO2 and NOX emissions
from electric generating units (EGUs) in 28 states in the eastern
United States. As a general matter, because CSAPR is CAIR's
replacement, emissions reductions associated with CAIR will for most
areas be made permanent and enforceable through implementation of
CSAPR.
Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C.
Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating
and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of
CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir.
2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United
States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to
the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the
high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct.
1584 (2014).
On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, but
invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as to a number
of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C.
Cir. 2015) (EME Homer City II). The litigation over CSAPR ultimately
delayed implementation of that rule for three years, from January 1,
2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to
replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015. CSAPR's
Phase 2 budgets were originally promulgated to begin on January 1,
2014, and are now scheduled to begin on January 1, 2017. As part of the
remand, the D.C. Circuit found the Ohio 2014 NOX budget was
invalid, stating that based on EPA's own data, Ohio made no
contribution to downwind states' nonattainment. On November 16, 2015,
EPA proposed the CSAPR Update Rule (80 FR 75706) which, when finalized,
will establish permanent and enforceable reduction through revised
NOX ozone season budgets for Ohio.
Because the emission reduction requirements of CAIR were
enforceable through the 2011 control period, and because CSAPR has been
promulgated to address the requirements previously addressed by CAIR
and will achieve similar or greater reductions once finalized, EPA has
determined that the EGU emission reductions that helped lead to
attainment in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area can now be considered
permanent and enforceable and that the requirement of CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) has been met.
b. Emission Reductions
Ohio developed an emissions inventory for NOX, direct
PM2.5, and SO2 for 2005, one of the years used to
designate the area as nonattainment, and 2008, one of the years the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area monitored attainment of the standard.
Emissions of SO2 and NOX from EGUs were
derived from EPA's Clean Air Market's acid rain database. These
emissions reflect Ohio's NOX emission budgets resulting from
EPA's NOX SIP call. The 2008 emissions from EGUs reflect
Ohio's emission caps under CAIR. All other point source emissions were
obtained from Ohio's source facility emissions reporting.
Area source emissions for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area for 2005
were taken from periodic emissions inventories.\8\ These 2005 area
source emission estimates were extrapolated to 2008. Source growth
factors were supplied by LADCO. These growth factors were based on the
U.S Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) growth
factors, with some updated local information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Periodic emission inventories are derived by states every
three years and reported to EPA. These periodic emission inventories
are required by the Federal Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule,
codified at 40 CFR Subpart A. EPA revised these and other emission
reporting requirements in a final rule published on December 17,
2008, at 73 FR 76539.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonroad mobile source emissions were extrapolated from nonroad
mobile source emissions reported in EPA's 2005 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI). Contractors were employed by LADCO to estimate
emissions for commercial marine vessels and railroads.
On-road mobile source emissions were calculated using EPA's mobile
source emission factor model, MOVES2010, in conjunction with
transportation model results developed by the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana
Regional Council of Governments (OKI).
All emissions estimates discussed below were documented in the
submittals and appendices to Ohio's redesignation request submittal of
July 22, 2016. For these data and additional emissions inventory data,
the reader is referred to EPA's digital docket for this rule, https://www.regulations.gov, for docket number EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0479, which
includes a digital copy of Ohio's submittal.
Emissions data in tons per year (tpy) for the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area are shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4 below.
Table 2--Comparison of 2005 Emissions From the Nonattainment Year and 2008 Emissions for an Attainment Year for
NOX in the Cincinnati-Hamilton Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change
Sector 2005 2008 (2008-2005)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU Point................................................. 55,930.44 46,853.89 -9,076.55
Non-EGU................................................... 10,371.70 9,790.50 -581.20
Non-road.................................................. 12,417.57 10,561.92 -1,855.65
Other (Area).............................................. 7,810.74 7,975.67 164.93
Marine, Air, and Rail (MAR)............................... 9,352.60 9,052.95 -299.65
On-road................................................... 71,919.89 64,471.22 -7,448.67
-----------------------------------------------------
[[Page 800]]
Total................................................. 167,802.94 148,706.15 -19,096.79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Comparison of 2005 Emissions From the Nonattainment Year and 2008 Emissions for an Attainment Year for
SO2 in the Cincinnati-Hamilton Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change
Sector 2005 2008 (2008-2005)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU Point................................................. 218,395.56 98,334.17 -120,061.39
Non-EGU................................................... 15,532.09 13,483.92 -2,048.17
Non-road.................................................. 1,057.16 416.87 -640.29
Area...................................................... 3,494.39 3,520.77 26.38
MAR....................................................... 1,092.58 982.82 -109.76
On-road................................................... 392.00 277.59 -114.41
-----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 239,963.78 117,016.14 -122,947.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Comparison of 2005 Emissions From the Nonattainment Year and 2008 Emissions for an Attainment Year for
Direct PM2.5 in the Cincinnati-Hamilton Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change
Sector 2005 2008 (2008-2005)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU Point................................................. 2,062.91 1,633.15 -429.76
Non-EGU................................................... 1,352.79 1,458.52 105.73
Non-road.................................................. 984.35 853.89 -130.46
Area...................................................... 1,828.85 1,864.80 35.95
MAR....................................................... 416.20 414.43 -1.77
On-road................................................... 2,810.30 2,679.85 -130.45
-----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 9,455.40 8,904.64 -550.76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 shows reductions in NOX emissions for the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area by 19,096.79 tpy between 2005 (nonattainment
year) and 2008 (attainment year). Table 3 shows that the Cincinnati-
Hamilton area reduced SO2 emissions by 122,947.64 tpy
between 2005 and 2008. Table 4 shows reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area by 550.76
tpy between 2005 and 2008.
4. Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA (Section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv))
EPA has fully approved an applicable maintenance plan that meets
the requirements of section 175(a) on December 23, 2011. See 76 FR
80253. In conjunction with Ohio's request to redesignate the
Cincinnati-Hamilton nonattainment area to attainment, Ohio has
submitted an updated attainment inventory of the maintenance plan to
reflect the provisions of subpart 4 (Title I, Part D) of the CAA, and
EPA is updating the maintenance plan to 2027.
a. What is required in a maintenance plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued
attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after EPA
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after
redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan which
demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for ten
years following the initial ten year maintenance period. To address the
possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must
contain contingency measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA
deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future
PM2.5 violations.
The Calcagni memorandum provides additional guidance on the content
of a maintenance plan. The memorandum states that a maintenance plan
should address the following items: The attainment emissions inventory,
a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for the ten years of
the maintenance period, a commitment to maintain the existing
monitoring network, factors and procedures to be used for verification
of continued attainment of the NAAQS, and a contingency plan to prevent
or correct future violations of the NAAQS.
Section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment
to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in
the area ``for at least 10 years after the redesignation.'' EPA has
interpreted this as a showing of maintenance ``for a period of ten
years following redesignation.'' Calcagni memorandum, p. 9. Where the
emissions inventory method of showing maintenance is used, its purpose
is to show that emissions during the maintenance period will not
increase over the
[[Page 801]]
attainment year inventory. Calcagni memorandum, pp. 9-10.
As discussed in detail in the section below, the state's
maintenance plan submission expressly documents that the area's
emissions inventories will remain below the attainment year inventories
through 2021. In addition, for the reasons set forth below, EPA
believes that the state's submission, in conjunction with additional
supporting information, further demonstrates that the area will
continue to maintain the 1997 annual SO2 NAAQS at least
through 2027. Thus, any EPA action to finalize its proposed approval of
the redesignation request and maintenance plans in 2017, will be based
on a showing, in accordance with section 175A, that the state's
maintenance plan provides for maintenance for at least ten years after
redesignation.
b. Attainment Inventory
Ohio developed an emissions inventory for NOX, direct
PM2.5, and SO2 for 2008, one of the years in the
period during which the Cincinnati-Hamilton area monitored attainment
of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, as described previously.
The attainment level of emissions is summarized in Tables 2, 3, and 4,
above. Ohio also included emissions inventories for VOCs and ammonia
from 2007, in accordance with the provisions of Subpart 4 (Title I,
Part D) of the CAA. These emissions are summarized in Table 6, in
discussion of the maintenance plan below.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
Ohio has a fully approved maintenance plan that meets the
requirements of Section 175(A). See 76 FR 80253. Along with the
redesignation request, Ohio submitted an updated attainment inventory
to reflect the provision of subpart 4. Ohio's plan demonstrates
maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard through 2021
by showing that current and future emissions of NOX,
directly emitted PM2.5 and SO2 in the area remain
at or below attainment year emission levels. Section 175A requires a
state seeking redesignation to attainment to submit a SIP revision to
provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the area ``for at least 10
years after the redesignation.'' EPA has interpreted this as a showing
of maintenance ``for a period of ten years following redesignation.''
Calcagni memorandum, p. 9. Where the emissions inventory method of
showing maintenance is used, its purpose is to show that emissions
during the maintenance period will not increase over the attainment
year inventory. Calcagni memorandum, pp. 9-10.
As discussed in detail in the section below, Ohio's maintenance
plan expressly documents that the area's emissions inventories will
remain below the attainment year inventories through 2021. In addition,
for the reasons set forth below, EPA believes that the state's
submission, in conjunction with additional supporting information,
further demonstrates that the area will continue to maintain the
PM2.5 standard at least through 2027. Thus, if EPA finalizes
its proposed approval of the redesignation request in 2017, it will be
based on a showing, in accordance with section 175A, that the state's
maintenance plan provides for maintenance for at least ten years after
redesignation.
Ohio's plan demonstrates maintenance of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS through 2021 by showing that current and future
emissions of NOX, directly emitted PM2.5 and
SO2 for the area remain at or below attainment year emission
levels.
The rate of decline in emissions of PM2.5,
NOX, and SO2 from the attainment year 2008
through 2021 indicates that the emissions inventory levels not only
significantly decline between 2008 and 2021, but also will continue to
decline through 2027 and beyond. PM2.5 emissions in the
nonattainment area are projected to decrease by 270.09 tpy in 2015 and
702.01 tpy in 2021. NOX emissions in the nonattainment area
are projected to decrease by 42,994.13 tpy in 2015 and 69,887.02 tpy in
2021. SO2 emissions in the nonattainment area are projected
to decline by 4,765.88 tpy in 2015 and 28,505.87 in 2021. These rates
of decline are consistent with monitored and projected air quality
trends; and emissions reductions achieved through emissions controls
and regulations that will remain in place beyond 2027, and through
fleet turnover that will continue beyond 2027, among other factors. EPA
is proposing that the previously approved MVEBs are adequate for
conformity purposes. See section 5 below for further details regarding
MVEBs.
A maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. See Wall
v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099-53100 (October 19, 2001),
68 FR 25413, 25430-25432 (May 12, 2003). Ohio uses emissions inventory
projections for the years 2018 and 2021 to demonstrate maintenance for
the entire Cincinnati-Hamilton area. The projected emissions were
estimated by Ohio, with assistance from LADCO and OKI, who used the
MOVES2010 model for mobile source projections. Projection modeling of
inventory emissions was done for the 2018 interim year emissions using
estimates based on the 2009 and 2018 LADCO modeling inventory, using
LADCO's growth factors, for all sectors. The 2021 maintenance year
emission estimates were based on emissions estimates from the 2018
LADCO modeling. Table 5 shows the 2008 attainment base year emission
estimates and the 2015 and 2021 emission projections for the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area, taken from Ohio's July 22, 2016, submission.
Table 5--Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2021 NOX, Direct PM2.5, and SO2 Emission Totals (tpy) for the Cincinnati-
Hamilton Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 NOX PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 (baseline).................. 117,016.14............... 148,706.15.............. 8,904.64.
2015 (interim)................... 112,250.26............... 105,712.02.............. 8,634.55.
2021 (maintenance)............... 88,510.27................ 78,819.13............... 8,202.63.
Projected Decrease (2021-2008)... 28,505.87................ 69,887.02............... 702.01.
24% decrease............. 47% decrease............ 8% decrease.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5 shows that, for the period between 2008 and the maintenance
projection for 2021, the Cincinnati-Hamilton area will reduce
NOX emissions by 69,887.02 tpy; direct PM2.5
emissions by 702.01 tpy; and SO2 emissions by 28,505.87 tpy.
The 2021 projected emissions levels are significantly below attainment
year inventory levels, and, based on the rate of decline, it is highly
improbable that any increases in these levels will occur
[[Page 802]]
in 2027 and beyond. Thus, the emissions inventories set forth in Table
5 show that the area will continue to maintain the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard during the maintenance period and at least
through 2027.
As Table 1 demonstrates, monitored PM2.5 design value
concentrations in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area are well below the NAAQS
in the years beyond 2008, the attainment year for the area. Further,
those values are trending downward as time progresses. Based on the
future projections of emissions in 2015 and 2021 showing significant
emissions reductions in direct PM2.5, NOX, and
SO2, it is very unlikely that monitored PM2.5
values in 2027 and beyond will show violations of the NAAQS.
Additionally, the 2013-2015 design values, which range from 9.5 to 11.2
[mu]g/m\3\, provide a sufficient margin in the unlikely event emissions
rise slightly in the future.
Maintenance Plan Evaluation of Ammonia and VOCs
With regard to the redesignation of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area,
in evaluating the effect of the Court's remand of EPA's implementation
rule, which included presumptions against consideration of VOCs and
ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, EPA in this proposal is also
considering the impact of the decision on the maintenance plan required
under sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To begin with, EPA notes that
the area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard and
that the state has shown that attainment of the standard is due to
permanent and enforceable emission reductions.
EPA proposes to confirm that the state's maintenance plan shows
continued maintenance of the standard by tracking the levels of the
precursors whose control brought about attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 standard in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. EPA
therefore believes that the only additional consideration related to
the maintenance plan requirements that results from the Court's January
4, 2013 decision is that of assessing the potential role of VOCs and
ammonia in demonstrating continued maintenance in this area. As
explained below, based upon documentation provided by the state and
supporting information, EPA believes that the maintenance plan for the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area need not include any additional emission
reductions of VOCs or ammonia in order to provide for continued
maintenance of the standard.
First, as noted above in EPA's discussion of section 189(e), VOCs
emission levels in this area have historically been well-controlled
under SIP requirements related to ozone and other pollutants. Second,
total ammonia emissions throughout the Cincinnati-Hamilton area are
very low, estimated to be less than 3,200 tpy. See Table 6 below. This
amount of ammonia emissions appears especially small in comparison to
the total amounts of SO2, NOX, and even direct
PM2.5 emissions from sources in the area. Third, as
described below, available information shows that no precursor,
including VOCs and ammonia, is expected to increase over the
maintenance period so as to interfere with or undermine the state's
maintenance demonstration.
Ohio's maintenance plan shows that emissions of direct
PM2.5, SO2, and NOX are projected to
decrease by 702.01 tpy, 28,505.87 tpy, and 69,887.022 tpy,
respectively, over the maintenance period. See Table 5 above. In
addition, emissions inventories used in the regulatory impact analysis
(RIA) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS show that VOCs and ammonia
emissions are projected to decrease by 16,716 tpy and 119 tpy,
respectively between 2007 and 2020. See Table 6 below. While the RIA
emissions inventories are only projected out to 2020, there is no
reason to believe that this downward trend would not continue through
2027. Given that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area is already attaining the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS even with the current level of
emissions from sources in the area, the downward trend of emissions
inventories would be consistent with continued attainment. Indeed,
projected emissions reductions for the precursors that the state is
addressing for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS indicate
that the area should continue to attain the NAAQS following the
precursor control strategy that the state has already elected to
pursue. Even if VOCs and ammonia emissions were to increase
unexpectedly between 2020 and 2027, the overall emissions reductions
projected in direct PM2.5, SO2, and
NOX would be sufficient to offset any increases. For these
reasons, EPA believes that local emissions of all of the potential
PM2.5 precursors will not increase to the extent that they
will cause monitored PM2.5 levels to violate the 1997
PM2.5 standard during the maintenance period.
Table 6--Comparison of 2007 and 2020 VOC and Ammonia Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Cincinnati-Hamilton Area \9\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Ammonia
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Net change Net change
2007 2020 2020-2007 2007 2020 2020-2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fires................................................... 224 224 0 16 16 0
nonpoint................................................ 24,149 24,080 -69 2,158 2,223 65
nonroad................................................. 9,294 5,228 -4,066 13 15 2
onroad.................................................. 20,317 8,041 -12,275 890 481 -409
point................................................... 5,138 4,831 -306 109 332 222
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 59,121 42,404 -16,716 3,186 3,067 -119
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, available air quality modeling analyses show continued
maintenance of the standard during the maintenance period. The current
annual design values for the area range from 9.5 to 11.2 [mu]g/m3
(based on 2013-2015 air quality data), which are well below the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [mu]g/m\3\. Moreover, the modeling
analysis conducted for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
indicates that the design values for this area are expected to continue
to decline through 2020. In the RIA analysis, the highest 2020 modeled
design value for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area is 10.5 [mu]g/m\3\. Given
that precursor emissions are projected to decrease through 2027, it is
reasonable to conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels
[[Page 803]]
in this area will also continue to decrease through 2027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ These emissions estimates were taken from the emissions
inventories developed for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS which can be found in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, EPA believes that there is ample justification to conclude
that the Cincinnati-Hamilton area should be redesignated, even taking
into consideration the emissions of other precursors potentially
relevant to PM2.5. After consideration of the D.C. Circuit's
January 4, 2013 decision, and for the reasons set forth in this notice,
EPA proposes to approve the state's revised attainment inventory into
the previously approved maintenance plan.
Based on the information summarized above, Ohio has adequately
demonstrated maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5 standard in this
area for a period extending in excess of ten years from expected final
action on Ohio's redesignation request. EPA finds that currently
approved plan will provide for maintenance.
d. Monitoring Network
Ohio's approved maintenance plan includes additional elements.
Ohio's plan includes a commitment to continue to operate its EPA-
approved monitoring network, as necessary to demonstrate ongoing
compliance with the NAAQS. As detailed above, there are nine monitors
measuring PM2.5 concentrations in the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area, and eight of the nine are operated by Ohio. The one other monitor
is located in Kentucky.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
Ohio remains obligated to continue to quality-assure monitoring
data and enter all data into the AQS in accordance with Federal
guidelines. Ohio will use these data, supplemented with additional
information as necessary, to assure that the area continues to attain
the standard. Ohio will also continue to develop and submit periodic
emission inventories as required by the Federal Consolidated Emissions
Reporting Rule (67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002) to track future levels of
emissions. Both of these actions will help to verify continued
attainment in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
f. Contingency Plan
The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or
prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation
of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should
identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures,
and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also
identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The
maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will
implement all pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP
before redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of
the CAA. As described above in section III.4, Ohio's previously
approved maintenance plan includes all necessary contingency measures
required under section 175A(d). See 76 FR 80253.
Ohio further commits to conduct ongoing review of its data, and if
monitored concentrations or emissions are trending upward, Ohio commits
to take appropriate steps to avoid a violation if possible. Ohio
commits to continue implementing SIP requirements upon and after
redesignation.
EPA believes that Ohio's approved contingency measures, as well as
the commitment to continue implementing any SIP requirements, satisfy
the pertinent requirements of section 175A(d).
As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Ohio commits to submit
to EPA an updated PM2.5 maintenance plan eight years after
redesignation of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to cover an additional
ten year period beyond the initial ten year maintenance period. As
required by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio has also committed to retain
the PM2.5 control measures contained in the SIP prior to
redesignation.
For all of the reasons set forth above, EPA determines that the
approved maintenance plan is still applicable and meets all the
contingency plan requirements of CAA section 175A.
5. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEBs) for the Mobile Source
Contribution to PM2.5 and NOX
a. How are MVEBs developed and what are the MVEBs for the Cincinnati-
Hamilton area?
Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for
PM2.5 nonattainment areas and for areas seeking
redesignation to attainment of the PM2.5 standard. These
emission control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP and attainment
demonstration SIP revisions) and maintenance plans create MVEBs based
on on-road mobile source emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their
precursors to address pollution from on-road transportation sources.
The MVEBs are the portions of the total allowable emissions that are
allocated to highway and transit vehicle use that, together with
emissions from other sources in the area, will provide for attainment,
RFP, or maintenance, as applicable.
Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an area seeking a redesignation to
attainment is established for the last year of the maintenance plan and
could also be established for an interim year or years. The MVEB serves
as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system.
The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November
24, 1993 transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188).
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans and
transportation improvement programs (TIPs) must be evaluated to
determine if they conform to the purpose of the area's SIP. Conformity
to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air
quality violations, worsen existing air quality violations, or delay
timely attainment of the NAAQS or any required interim milestone. If a
transportation plan or TIP does not conform, most new transportation
projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and
procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such
transportation activities to a SIP.
When reviewing SIP revisions containing MVEBs, including attainment
strategies, rate-of-progress plans, and maintenance plans, EPA must
affirmatively find adequate and/or approve the MVEBs for use in
determining transportation conformity before the MVEBs can be used.
Once EPA affirmatively approves and/or finds the submitted MVEBs to be
adequate for transportation conformity purposes, the MVEBs must be used
by state and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed
transportation plans and TIPs conform to the SIP as required by section
176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining the
adequacy of MVEBs are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Additionally, to
approve a MVEB, EPA must complete a thorough review of the SIP and
conclude that the SIP will achieve its overall purpose. In this case,
EPA must review Ohio's PM2.5 maintenance plan and conclude
that it will provide for maintenance of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area.
[[Page 804]]
The maintenance plans previously submitted by Ohio for the area
contained PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the area for
the year 2021. Ohio calculated the MVEBs using MOVES2010. These
approved budgets are used in future conformity determinations and
regional emissions analyses prepared by the OKI, and will have to be
based on the use of MOVES2010 or the most recent version of MOVES
required to be used in transportation conformity determinations.\10\
The state has determined the 2021 MVEBs for the combined Ohio and
Indiana portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to be 1,241.19 tpy for
primary PM2.5 and 21,747.71 tpy for NOX. The Ohio
and Indiana portion of the area included ``safety margins'' as provided
for in 40 CFR 93.124(a) (described below) of 112.84 tpy for primary
PM2.5 and 2,836.65 tpy for NOX in the 2021 MVEBs,
respectively, to provide for on-road mobile source growth. Ohio did not
provide emission budgets for SO2, VOCs, and ammonia because
it concluded, consistent with EPA's presumptions regarding these
precursors, that emissions of these precursors from on-road motor
vehicles are not significant contributors to the area's
PM2.5 air quality problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ EPA described the circumstances under which an area would
be required to use MOVES in transportation conformity determinations
in its March 2, 2010, Federal Register notice officially releasing
MOVES2010 for use in SIPs and transportation conformity
determinations. (75 FR 9413)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, the motor vehicle budgets
including the safety margins and motor vehicle emission projections for
both NOX and PM2.5 are equal to the levels in the
attainment year.
EPA has reviewed the previously approved budgets for 2021 including
the added safety margins using the conformity rule's adequacy criteria
found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and the conformity rule's requirements for
safety margins found at 40 CFR 93.124(a). EPA has reviewed the approved
budgets and the maintenance plan, and EPA is determining that the 2021
direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets, including the
requested safety margins for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, are adequate
for use in conformity.
b. What action is EPA taking on the submitted motor vehicle emissions
budgets?
EPA previously approved Ohio's MVEBs for use to determine
transportation conformity in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area and these
budgets remain applicable. EPA has determined that the area can
maintain attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the
relevant maintenance period and no changes to the plan have been made.
See 76 FR 80253.
6. Comprehensive Emissions Inventory
As discussed above, section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires areas to
submit a comprehensive emissions inventory including direct PM and all
four precursors (SO2, NOX, VOCs, and ammonia).
EPA approved the Ohio 2005 base year emissions inventory on December
23, 2011 (76 FR 80253). This previously approved base year emissions
inventory detailed emissions of PM2.5, SO2, and
NOX for 2005. Emissions inventories for VOCs and ammonia
from 2007, taken from the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, have
been added as part of this submittal in accordance with the provisions
of subpart 4 (Title I, Part D) of the CAA. Emissions contained in the
submittal cover the general source categories of point sources, area
sources, on-road mobile sources, and nonroad mobile sources.
Based upon EPA's previous action and 2007 emissions inventory for
VOCs and ammonia, the emissions inventory was complete and accurate,
and met the requirement of CAA section 172(c)(3).
IV. EPA's Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to take several actions related to redesignation
of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA has previously approved Ohio's PM2.5 maintenance
plan and MVEBs for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. EPA is proposing to
determine that this plan and budgets are still applicable.
EPA has previously approved the 2005 primary PM2.5,
NOX, and SO2 base year emissions inventory. EPA
is proposing to approve Ohio's updated emissions inventory which
includes emissions inventories for VOCs and ammonia from 2007. EPA is
proposing that Ohio meets the emissions inventory requirement under
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii).
EPA is proposing to approve the RACM/RACT portion of Ohio's prior
Cincinnati-Hamilton area attainment plan SIP revision as providing
adequate RACM/RACT consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.1010(b),
because Ohio has demonstrated with a RACM/RACT analysis that no further
control measures would advance the attainment date in the area.
EPA is proposing that Ohio meets the requirements for redesignation
of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is
thus proposing to grant Ohio's request to change the designation of its
portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change
the official designation of the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part
81, from nonattainment to attainment. If finalized, EPA would determine
that the previously approved maintenance plan is still applicable to
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and, if finalized, will not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this actions:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
[[Page 805]]
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not economically significant regulatory action based on
health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because
redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on tribes,
impact any existing sources of air pollution on tribal lands, nor
impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air quality standards
in tribal lands.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: December 13, 2016.
Robert Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2016-31635 Filed 1-3-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
