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