[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 15, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47414-47422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21818]
[[Page 47413]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of
Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of the
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain Area to Attainment for Ozone; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 47414]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0221; FRL-8952-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of the
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain Area to Attainment for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking several related actions affecting the Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain, Ohio 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is making
a determination under the Clean Air Act (CAA) that the Cleveland-Akron-
Lorain area (Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina,
Portage, and Summit Counties) has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This determination is
based on quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the
2006-2008 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
has been attained in the area. Preliminary 2009 air quality data show
that the area continues to attain the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is
approving, as a revision to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP),
the state's plan for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2020 in
the area. EPA is approving a request from the state of Ohio to
redesignate the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area to attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA is approving the 2002 base year emissions inventory
for the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area as meeting the requirements of the
CAA. EPA is approving Ohio's 15 percent (15%) Rate of Progress (ROP)
plan as meeting the requirements of the CAA for the 1-hour ozone
standard. EPA is also approving a waiver, for the Cleveland-Akron-
Lorain area, from the oxides of nitrogen (NOX) Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements of section 182(f) of
the CAA in relation to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Finally, EPA finds
adequate and is approving the state's 2012 and 2020 volatile organic
compound (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area.
DATES: This final rule is effective September 15, 2009.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action: Docket ID No.
EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0221. All documents in the docket are listed on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Kathleen D'Agostino,
Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-1767 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
Table of Contents
I. What is the Background for This Rule?
II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Rule?
III. What Action is EPA Taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the Background for This Rule?
A. What is the General Background Information?
On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone
standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). EPA published a final rule
designating and classifying areas under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on
April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857).
On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a more stringent 8-hour ozone
standard of 0.075 ppm. This rule was published in the Federal Register
on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436). It is expected that EPA will designate
nonattainment areas under the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in 2010.
Today's approval of Ohio's SIP revision addresses only the status of
the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.
The background for today's actions with respect to the 1997 ozone
standard is discussed in detail in EPA's June 12, 2009, proposal (74 FR
27957). In that rulemaking, we noted that, under EPA regulations at 40
CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the three-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. (See 69 FR 23857
(April 30, 2004) for further information). The data completeness
requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90%, and no single year has less than
75% data completeness, as determined in accordance with Appendix I of
Part 50.
Under the CAA, EPA may redesignate nonattainment areas to
attainment if sufficient complete, quality-assured data are available
to determine that the area has attained the standard and if it meets
the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E).
On March 17, 2009 and April 24, 2009, the Ohio EPA submitted a
request to redesignate the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area to attainment of
the 8-hour ozone standard. The request included three years of
complete, quality-assured data for the period of 2006 through 2008,
indicating the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone had been achieved. The area
continues to attain the standard based on preliminary data available in
2009. The June 12, 2009, proposed rule provides a detailed discussion
of how Ohio met this and other CAA requirements. Under EPA's proposal,
final action to redesignate the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area to
attainment was contingent on final approval of Ohio rules satisfying
the requirement for volatile organic compound (VOC) RACT. Such final
approval was published on July 28, 2009 at 74 FR 37171.
B. What are the Impacts of the December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007,
United States Court of Appeals Decisions Regarding EPA's Phase 1
Implementation Rule?
On December 22, 2006, in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.
v. EPA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour ozone standard
(69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). On June
8, 2007, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the D.C.
Circuit Court clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with
regard to those parts of the rule that had been
[[Page 47415]]
successfully challenged. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA,
485 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions
related to classifications for areas currently classified under subpart
2 of Title I, part D of the CAA as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-
hour attainment dates, and the timing for emissions reductions needed
for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, remain effective. The June
8th decision left intact the Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for
implementing the 8-hour standard in certain nonattainment areas under
subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By limiting the vacatur, the Court let
stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour standard and those anti-
backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been
successfully challenged. The June 8th decision reaffirmed the Court's
December 22, 2006, decision that EPA had improperly failed to retain
four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-
backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment area New
Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area's 1-hour
nonattainment classification; (2) section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour
severe or extreme nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be implemented
pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, contingent on an
area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-
hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS; and (4) certain
transportation conformity requirements for certain types of Federal
actions. The June 8th decision clarified that the Court's reference to
conformity requirements was limited to requiring the continued use of
1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-hour budgets were
available for 8-hour conformity determinations.
For the reasons set forth in the proposal, EPA does not believe
that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to this
redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation. EPA believes that
the Court's December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, decisions impose no
impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to
attainment, because, even in light of the Court's decisions,
redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation
provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation
requests.
With respect to the requirement for transportation conformity under
the 1-hour standard, the Court in its June 8th decision clarified that,
for those areas with 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets in their
maintenance plans, anti-backsliding requires only that those 1-hour
budgets must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations until
replaced by 8-hour budgets. To meet this requirement, conformity
determinations in such areas must comply with the applicable
requirements of EPA's conformity regulations at 40 CFR part 93.
C. What are the Impacts of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Remand?
As discussed in greater detail in the proposal, EPA has considered
the relationship of the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area's maintenance plan
to the reductions currently required pursuant to the Clean Air
Interstate Rule. This rule was remanded to EPA, and the process of
developing a replacement rule is ongoing. However, the remand of CAIR
does not alter the requirements of the NOX SIP Call and Ohio
has now demonstrated that the area can maintain without any additional
requirements (beyond those required by the NOX SIP Call).
Therefore, EPA believes that Ohio's demonstration of maintenance under
sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) remains valid.
The NOX SIP Call requires states to make significant,
specific emissions reductions. It also provided a mechanism, the
NOX Budget Trading Program, which states could use to
achieve those reductions. When EPA promulgated CAIR, it discontinued
(starting in 2009) the NOX Budget Trading Program, 40 CFR
51.121(r), but created another mechanism--the CAIR ozone season trading
program--which states could use to meet their SIP Call obligations, 70
FR 25289-90. EPA notes that a number of states, when submitting SIP
revisions to require sources to participate in the CAIR ozone season
trading program, removed the SIP provisions that required sources to
participate in the NOX Budget Trading Program. In addition,
because the provisions of CAIR including the ozone season
NOX trading program remain in place during the remand, EPA
is not currently administering the NOX Budget Trading
Program. Nonetheless, all states, regardless of the current status of
their regulations that previously required participation in the
NOX Budget Trading Program, will remain subject to all of
the requirements in the NOX SIP Call even if the existing
CAIR ozone season trading program is withdrawn or altered. In addition,
the anti-backsliding provisions of 40 CFR 51.905(f) specifically
provide that the provisions of the NOX SIP Call, including
the statewide NOX emission budgets, continue to apply after
revocation of the 1-hour standard.
In the case of Ohio, the state has retained the SIP provisions
requiring sources to participate in the NOX Budget Trading
Program. Ohio EPA is in the process of promulgating a rule change
stating that the NOX Budget Trading Program would not be
applicable so long as CAIR remains in place. However, the drafted rule
revision also provides that should CAIR requirements be removed, the
NOX Budget Trading Program would once again apply, on
condition that EPA maintains a NOX Budget Trading Program.
All NOX SIP Call states have SIPs that currently satisfy
their obligations under the SIP Call, the SIP Call reduction
requirements are being met, and EPA will continue to enforce the
requirements of the NOX SIP Call even after any response to
the CAIR remand. For these reasons, EPA believes that regardless of the
status of the CAIR program, the NOX SIP call requirements
can be relied upon in demonstrating maintenance. Here, the state has
demonstrated maintenance based in part on those requirements.
II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Rule?
EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period. The comment period
closed on July 13, 2009. EPA received adverse comments from the
Allegheny County Health Department, a private citizen, and the National
Resources Defense Council (NRDC). A summary of the comments received,
and EPA's responses, follow.
(1) Comment: The totals for VOC Non-road emissions and VOC Area
emissions in table 4 are incorrect. Also, the value for 2006 VOC Non-
road in table 5 is incorrect.
Response: EPA concurs with the commenter and is revising the
tables. Below are corrected tables 4 and 5. The revisions correct
typographical errors in the tables and do not affect the net change in
total VOC and NOX emissions between 2002 and 2006, since the
correct numbers were used in calculating these values.
[[Page 47416]]
Table 4--Cleveland-Akron-Lorain VOC and NOx Emissions for Attainment Year 2006
[tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Area Nonroad Onroad Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashtabula................................. 0.94 4.52 5.89 0.85 9.19 8.71 4.00 7.01 20.02 21.09
Cuyahoga.................................. 3.68 13.56 44.14 13.83 40.62 36.61 27.64 64.40 116.08 128.40
Geauga.................................... 0.00 0.00 9.96 1.01 4.87 2.58 2.41 5.06 17.24 8.65
Lake...................................... 0.82 37.48 9.06 2.30 11.13 8.99 5.33 13.00 26.34 61.77
Lorain.................................... 3.18 27.31 11.45 2.66 13.03 12.84 6.17 14.88 33.83 57.69
Medina.................................... 0.79 0.26 7.40 1.57 5.29 5.02 5.05 12.32 18.53 19.17
Portage................................... 0.95 0.22 6.19 1.52 7.49 6.25 4.30 10.79 18.93 18.78
Summit.................................... 1.27 3.23 18.17 5.51 12.36 11.33 14.18 32.28 45.98 54.35
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 11.63 86.58 112.26 29.25 103.98 92.33 69.08 161.74 296.95 369.90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Comparison of Cleveland-Akron-Lorain 2002 and 2006 VOC and NOX Emissions
[tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net change Net change
2002 2006 (2002-2006) 2002 2006 (2002-2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................. 12.64 11.63 -1.01 156.98 86.58 -70.40
Area.............................. 110.68 112.26 1.58 12.49 29.25 16.76
Nonroad........................... 98.72 103.98 5.26 94.44 92.33 -2.11
Onroad............................ 109.49 69.08 -40.41 226.17 161.74 -64.43
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 331.53 296.95 -34.58 490.08 369.90 -120.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Comment: Open burning is a direct cause of air pollution. Open
burning results in direct emissions of carbon dioxide and causes
neighbors to use air conditioners to avoid breathing in smoke fumes and
prevent smoke damage. Air conditioning is a large source of unnecessary
power usage.
Response: EPA appreciates the commenter's concerns regarding open
burning. However, the current rulemaking is a redesignation action that
is designed to determine whether an area has met the requirements for
redesignation to attainment as set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the
CAA. Consideration of how to address open burning issues is not related
to the current redesignation action. In this action, EPA has determined
that, for the 1997 8-hour NAAQS, the state has met all requirements for
redesignation, including a demonstration that the area has met all
applicable requirements for the purposes of redesignation and that it
will maintain the standard over the ten year maintenance period.
(3) Comment: Ohio EPA's redesignation request fails to demonstrate
compliance with the ozone NAAQS. Three out of the eleven ozone monitors
in the area registered three-year average fourth-highest concentrations
that were greater than 0.08 ppm. EPA contends that the relevant
standard is complied with because the area has achieved average 8-hour
ozone concentrations less than 0.085 ppm. While 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I, purports to authorize such a rounding convention, its use
here improperly inflates the 1997 standard from its actual value of
0.08 ppm and would allow an area to be considered to be in attainment
even though it has fourth-highest three-year average concentrations
that exceed the actual ozone NAAQS. The commenter contends that such
rounding approach has been rejected by EPA's own scientific advisory
committee in developing the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and it would be arbitrary
and capricious for EPA to use it here.
Response: EPA promulgated the 1997 8-hour ozone standard on July
18, 1997 (62 FR 38856). As part of this rulemaking, EPA promulgated 40
CFR 50 Appendix I, entitled ``Interpretation of the 8-hour Primary and
Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone,'' which
provides rounding procedures under which observed values which round to
0.08 ppm are considered to reflect attainment of the standard. As
discussed in detail in the proposed rule, an area is considered to be
in attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard if the three-year average of
the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations
measured at each monitor within an area over each year does not exceed
0.084 ppm. Comments regarding the adequacy of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard should have been submitted in response to the proposal on that
standard and its implementing regulations that include the data
handling and rounding conventions for the 1997 8-hour NAAQS, 40 CFR
Part 50, Appendix I. The definition of the standard as set forth in the
applicable regulations cannot be challenged here. In addition, in
adopting the 2008 standard, 0.075 ppm, EPA changed the ``degree of
precision to which the level of the standard is specified to the
thousandth ppm'' (72 FR 37882 (July 11, 2007)), expressing the standard
out to three decimal places instead of two, as was previously done with
the 1997 standard. While this was a different way of expressing the
standard, it did not undermine the implementation of the 1997 standard.
As stated in the final rulemaking on the 2008 standard: ``Truncating
both the individual 8-hour averages used to determine the annual fourth
maximum as well as the three-year average of the fourth maxima to the
third decimal place is consistent with the approach used in Appendix I
for the previous 8-hour ozone standard.'' 73 FR 16436, 16501 (March 27,
2008). The
[[Page 47417]]
2008 three-digit standard achieves the same result that would have been
accomplished by adopting a 0.07 standard and permitting rounding up to
0.075. Thus it does not represent, as commenters contend, a repudiation
of the result of rounding in the 1997 standard. It is therefore not
only consistent with the existing statute and regulations, but entirely
reasonable, for EPA to implement the 1997 standard as it has here.
(4) Comment: Ohio EPA's contention that ozone concentrations have
trended downward is not supported by the 2006 to 2008 data provided by
the agency. For seven out of the eleven monitors in the Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain area, the fourth-high ozone concentration increased from
2006 to 2007. At eight out of the eleven monitors, the 2008 fourth-
highest concentration was higher than the 2006 fourth-highest
concentration. This suggests that ozone concentrations are not
declining and raises questions about whether redesignation is
appropriate. While 2008 concentrations are mostly lower than those in
2007, it is not clear if such reduction is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions or transient factors. At a minimum, EPA must
decline to approve Ohio EPA's redesignation request until 2009
monitoring data can confirm the relevant ozone concentration trends.
Response: The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a
nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E)
allows for redesignation provided that, among other things, the
Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS. A determination that an area has attained the standard is based
on an objective review of the air quality data. There are no provisions
in the CAA or in EPA redesignation policy for using monitoring data
trends or statistical analyses as criteria for determining attainment
in evaluating a redesignation request. As discussed in detail in the
proposed rule, the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area is monitoring attainment
of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. As discussed in the proposal, the
requirement that attainment be due to permanent and enforceable
emissions reductions is a separate criterion for redesignation, which
has been met here.
Furthermore, looking at the yearly fourth-high ozone concentrations
ozone over a two or three year time period is not statistically
significant and does not determine a trend. In fact, it is expected
that there will be year to year variations in ozone concentrations due
to meteorological influences. A review of data over a longer time
period, from 2001 (designations under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
were based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003) through 2008,
shows a downward trend at each monitor in the area. Moreover, in its
maintenance demonstration the state has shown that the 1997 ozone
standard can be maintained in the area over a ten-year period after
redesignation.
(5) Comment: Redesignation is inappropriate because the Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain area is out of attainment of the 2008 ozone standard,
which is currently set at 0.075 ppm. As such, the Cleveland-Akron-
Lorain area has not demonstrated compliance with the currently
applicable NAAQS and, therefore, cannot be considered in attainment
with CAA ozone standards. Redesignation to attainment under the 1997
standard would suspend Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirements
and other measures that would enable the area to make progress toward
attainment of the 2008 standard.
The ruling in Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), does not
compel a different conclusion. In that case, redesignation for the
Cincinnati area was challenged because, inter alia, another rulemaking
proceeding had found that the area was certain or highly likely to
require additional emission reductions. The court rejected the
challenge because the other proceeding was not an attainment rulemaking
and its data were outdated. In this case, however, Ohio has made a
nonattainment recommendation under the 2008 standard using data that
are not out of date, and thus redesignation to attainment here would
not be reasonable. As the Wall court stated, ``[A]ny final
determination regarding the adequacy of a maintenance plan will be made
`in light of the particular circumstances facing the area proposed for
redesignation and based on all relevant information available at the
time.''' 265 F.3d at 430. A pending designation of nonattainment is
relevant information that forecloses redesignation to attainment at
this time.
Response: The area's status with respect to the 2008 standard does
not foreclose redesignation for the 1997 standard. The redesignation
being considered in this action is only for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. Designations for the 2008 8-hour standard have not yet
occurred, and will be made in the future in accordance with the process
for designating areas under the new standard. This redesignation
rulemaking action is not related to that future designation action. As
set forth above, the state's recommendation to designate the area as
nonattainment for the 2008 standard does not, as commenters contend,
foreclose redesignation of the area for purposes of the 1997 standard.
EPA has not yet acted on the state's recommendation, and even had it
done so, this would not prevent redesignation for the prior standard.
Indeed, it would be inappropriate to retain the 1997 8-hour
nonattainment designation, if no longer applicable, solely on the
assumption that the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area might be designated as
nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in the future. EPA has
in the past continued to redesignate areas under existing standards
even after the adoption of new standards for the same pollutant. After
adopting the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, EPA continued to redesignate
areas for the 1-hour ozone standard until that standard was revoked.
See, for example, Cincinnati redesignation, 70 FR 35946 (June 21,
2005).
Thus even after the area receives its designation for the 2008
standard, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and the 2008 8-hour ozone
standard are considered to be separable in terms of requiring emission
controls and determining the area's attainment status. Subsequent to
the adoption of the 2008 standard, EPA has continued to redesignate for
the 1997 ozone standard those areas attaining that ozone standard and
otherwise meeting redesignation requirements. See, for example,
Detroit, Michigan redesignation, 74 FR 30950 (June 29, 2009);
Clearfield and Indiana Counties, Pennsylvania redesignation, 74 FR
11674 (March 19, 2009); Greene County, Pennsylvania redesignation, 74
FR 11671 (March 19, 2009); and Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
redesignation, 73 FR 29436 (May 21, 2008).
Commenters have noted that the redesignation would be
``counterproductive'' because it would ``suspend RFP and other measures
that would enable the area to make progress towards attainment of the
2008 standard.'' This contention, however, is not an obstacle to
redesignaton for attainment of the 1997 ozone standard. The Sixth
Circuit has previously approved as reasonable EPA's interpretation of
what constitutes interference with a new standard under section 110(l),
and it does not include ``that which does not advance'' as opposed to
that which ``hinder[s] or make[s] worse.'' Kentucky Resources Council
v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986, 995 (6th Cir. 2006). In any event, we have
evaluated this redesignation with respect to section 110(l) and have
[[Page 47418]]
determined that it will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of
the 2008 ozone standard nor any other standard, since the area is
attaining the 1997 ozone standard, no control measures are being
removed from the SIP, and no implementation ceased. See Id. (showing
deference to EPA's interpretation of section 110(l)). See also the
discussion of 110(l) in the Cincinnati 1-hour ozone redesignation at 70
FR 35960. The rationale stated in the Cincinnati redesignation applies
here as well:
``EPA does not believe that approving a maintenance plan
containing existing control measures that the State has demonstrated
will provide emission reductions sufficient to maintain the 1-hour
ozone standard can in any way interfere with Ohio's obligations
under the PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone standards for
Cincinnati. EPA is not approving any relaxation of the existing
control measures so emissions of VOC and NOX will not
increase as a consequence of this action. Morevoer, Ohio will still
have to meet whatever obligations it may have regarding the
implementation of the new standards and determining that existing
control measures will provide for maintenance of the 1-hour standard
does not impair nor interfere with the state's obligations regarding
the new standards. EPA does not believe that section 110(l)
transforms this redesignation action into an obligation for the
state to comply with its SIP obligations for the new standards
earlier than otherwise required, which is the implication of the
assertion that this action cannot proceed without a demonstration
that additional control measures are not necessary to prevent
interference with attainment of the PM2.5 and 8-hour
ozone standards. Moreover, the commenter does not present any
evidence or even assert that there is anything about any of the
control measures contained in the maintenance plan that would
somehow interfere with PM2.5, 8-hour ozone attainment, or
other requirements. EPA does not believe that approval of this
maintenance plan would interfere with the 8-hour ozone or
PM2.5 attainment or other obligations applicable to the
Cincinnati area. As Cincinnati's ability to implement those
standards would be the same if this redesignation were not
occurring, approval of the maintenance plan cannot interfere with
the requirements applicable for those standards.''
70 FR 35960 (June 21, 2005). Thus EPA has determined that the
redesignation of the area does not interfere with attainment of the
2008 8-hour ozone standard and complies with the provisions of section
110(l) of the CAA.
(6) Comment: Ohio EPA has not provided an adequate maintenance
plan. Ohio EPA has failed to fully satisfy the requirement that it
include contingency measures for ensuring continued attainment that can
take effect ``without further action by the State or EPA.'' 42 U.S.C.
7402(c)(9). EPA interprets that provision as requiring that the state
or EPA need not take any ``further rulemaking activities'' in order for
the contingency measures to be carried out. General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57
FR 13498, 13512; Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 F.3d 527, 451 (6th Cir. 2004).
While Ohio EPA has identified a series of possible contingency measures
and triggers for possible implementation of those measures, the agency
also notes that ``adoption of any additional control measures is
subject to the necessary administrative and legal process * * *
required by Ohio law for rulemaking.'' EPA must ensure that Ohio EPA
can adopt such additional control measures without the need for
additional rulemaking before any redesignation for the Cleveland-Akron-
Lorain area can be made.
Response: Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan
include contingency provisions, as EPA deems necessary, to promptly
correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of
the area. Contrary to the commenter's contention, these contingency
measures are not the same as those required for nonattainment areas
under section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9). The statutory provision under
section 175A for maintenance contingency measures to be employed after
redesignation to attainment is distinct from the requirement for
contingency measures for nonattainment areas prior to attainment. As
explicitly discussed in EPA's September 4, 1992, redesignation policy
memorandum from John Calcagni entitled ``Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'': ``For the purposes of
section 175A, a State is not required to have fully adopted contingency
measures that will take effect without further action by the State in
order for the maintenance plan to be approved.'' EPA has applied this
interpretation since 1992, and it has been referred to and relied upon
by the Sixth Circuit. In Greenbaum v. EPA, cited by the commenters, the
Sixth Circuit stated that under section 175A, the EPA ``has been
granted broad discretion by Congress in determining what is `necessary
to assure' prompt correction.'' 370 F.3d at 540. In that case, the
state had chosen to adopt as contingency measures under section 175A
those measures that it had originally adopted pursuant to section
172(c)(9), so the measures happened to meet the requirement of that
section that no further state action be necessary. But nothing mandates
that section 175A contingency measures meet the strictures that apply
solely to section 172(c)(9) measures. The General Preamble language
cited by the commenters, that ``no further rulemaking activities by the
State or EPA would be needed to implement the contingency measures'',
addresses contingency measures under section 172(c)(9). Indeed, the
Sixth Circuit in Greenbaum pointed out that this limitation does not
apply to contingency measures under section 175A, noting that the
Calcagni memorandum states that ``[f]or the purposes of section 175A, a
State is not required to have fully adopted contingency measures that
will take effect without further action by the State in order for the
maintenance plan to be approved.'' 370 F.3d at 541.
Ohio EPA included the following list of potential contingency
measures in the maintenance plan for the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area: A
lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline program; tightened VOC Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) on existing sources covered by EPA
Control Technique Guidelines issued after the 1990 CAA; one or more
transportation control measures sufficient to achieve at least half a
percent reduction in actual area wide VOC emissions; alternative fuel
and diesel retrofit programs for fleet vehicle operations; VOC or
NOX emission offsets for new and modified major sources; VOC
or NOX emission offsets for new and modified minor sources;
VOC or NOX controls on new minor sources (less than 100 tons
per year (tpy)); increase in the ratio of emission offsets required for
new sources; and, NOX RACT for existing combustion sources.
The state can choose to implement one or more of these measures as
necessary to correct a violation of the standard. As set forth in the
proposal, we find that the contingency measures included in the
maintenance plan are adequate to assure that the state will promptly
correct a future violation of the standard that occurs after
redesignation.
(7) Comment: Ohio EPA has not provided any information showing that
it has adequate resources to enforce the steps relied on in the
maintenance plan. Such information is required by 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2)(C) which requires that each plan ``include a program to
provide for the enforcement of measures'' described in the plan, and 40
CFR 51.280, which requires a ``description of the resources available
to the state and local agencies * * * and any additional resources
needed to carry out the plan'' for the next five years. Ohio EPA,
[[Page 47419]]
however, has simply asserted that it ``has the legal authority and
necessary resources to actively enforce any violations of its rules or
permit provisions.'' The agency has not identified what those resources
are, or explained how they are purportedly adequate to ensure
enforcement of the plan. This shortcoming is especially troublesome
given that Ohio faces a $3.2 billion budget deficit and will likely be
cutting agency budgets to try to close that gap.
Response: As discussed in detail in the proposal, section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a
nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)
allows for redesignation provided that, among other things, the area
has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D.
Section 110(a) of Title I of the CAA contains the general requirements
for a SIP, including the requirement that the state provide ``necessary
assurances that the State * * * will have adequate personnel, funding,
and authority under state * * * law to carry out such implementation
plan. * * *'' The courts are in agreement that: ``Congress has left to
the Administrator's sound discretion determination of what assurances
are `necessary.' '' NRDC v. EPA, 478 F.2d 875, 884 (1st Cir. 1973);
Friends of the Earth v. EPA, 499 F.2d 1118, 1126 (2d. Cir. 1974), BCCA
Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003). In a December 5,
2007, SIP submittal, Ohio EPA asserted that it continues to retain the
resources necessary to evaluate ambient air quality, develop plans to
attain new and existing ambient air quality standards, run a complete
new source review program and effectively enforce all applicable
requirements. In support of Ohio EPA's assertion that the state
continues to staff and implement a vigorous enforcement program, the
submittal included Ohio EPA's Enforcement Report: 2006. As documented
in the report, Ohio's Division of Air Pollution Control reduced 160 tpy
VOC and 419 tpy NOX through enforcement actions, secured
$1,248,917 in penalties and issued 41 orders. In addition, the
department resolved 96% of its enforcement cases older than 21 months
and all verified complaints within two years. With respect to legal
authority, Ohio Revised Code 3704.03 provides the Director of Ohio EPA
with the authority to develop rules and regulations necessary to meet
state and Federal ambient air quality standards and to implement the
program.
The Court found that EPA was entitled to rely on the state's
certification that the SIP was a valid exercise of its legal authority.
See Ohio Envtl. Council v. EPA, 593 F.2d 24, 28 (6th Cir. 1979). In
BCCA v. EPA, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the state
had ``provided a general assurance that its fiscal and manpower
resources were adequate to implement the SIP as a whole.'' The Court
also determined that the Houston, Texas SIP ``provided a detailed
discussion about the legal authority of state and local agencies to
implement, maintain, and enforce the plan as a whole, including
citations to applicable law.'' The Fifth Circuit found that, ``based on
its past experience with Texas's air quality program and its
relationship with the state, the EPA determined that these assurances
regarding funding, resources, and legal authority met the minimum
requirements of Sec. 7410(a)(2)(E).'' Finding that EPA had also
evaluated the state's funding and resources and determined they were
adequate, the Court concluded that EPA approval was in compliance with
the CAA and not arbitrary and capricious. 355 F.3d at 843-845.
Commenters here raise the identical claim regarding section
110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.280 that petitioners set forth in the
Cincinnati 1-hour ozone redesignation case Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426
(6th Cir. 2001). In Wall, the Sixth Circuit concluded that ``there is
no language in the CAA or in the EPA's regulations that specifically
requires that a separate commitment be made within the maintenance
plans themselves. Thus, the EPA permissibly determined that Kentucky
and Ohio fulfilled the requirement of submitting a `program to provide
for enforcement of the [maintenance] measures' when such measures were
already approved in their earlier SIPs.'' Id. at 438.
As pointed out in the Wall case, EPA has previously approved the
state SIP as meeting 110(a)(2)(C) requirements in acting on the state's
1-hour ozone SIP. The enforcement of the 8-hour ozone standard is a
continuation of this same enforcement program, and the state has
submitted confirmation that the area's 8-hour SIP continues to meet
those requirements.
In addition, EPA periodically reviews state enforcement programs
for adequacy. The EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
EPA's ten regions, the Environmental Council of States Compliance
Committee, and other state representatives jointly developed a method
to assess state performance in the enforcement and compliance assurance
program. EPA performs this assessment on a four-year cycle. The most
recent assessment of Ohio EPA's enforcement program using this
framework was released by EPA on September 27, 2007. In that
assessment, EPA found that Ohio EPA is implementing an adequate
enforcement program. Ohio EPA's enforcement actions have been found to
be generally successful at bringing sources back into compliance in a
specific time frame, with well-defined penalties. Further, Ohio EPA's
inspection reports meet the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Act
Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS). While EPA noted
that Ohio EPA could make improvements regarding reporting issues and
timeliness of enforcement actions, the state has since addressed these
concerns by implementing the corrective actions recommended by EPA in
that assessment.
In addition, as required under 40 CFR 35.115, EPA reviews Ohio
EPA's air pollution control activities, including enforcement, on a
yearly basis. In EPA's most recent review, dated February 24, 2009, EPA
found no areas of concern regarding Ohio EPA's ability to adequately
implement and enforce its air control programs. During the 2008 Federal
fiscal reporting year, Ohio EPA's commitment under the CMS was to
complete 342 Title V source full compliance evaluations. There were 375
full compliance evaluations reported to EPA's AIRS Facility Subsystem
(AFS) database. In addition, Ohio EPA exceeded the commitment to
conduct 210 synthetic minor source full compliance evaluations by
reporting 225 evaluations to AFS.
As in the BCCA case, the state has also certified that it has
adequate legal authority, and based on EPA's past experience with the
state's air quality program and its relationship with the state, as
well as its evaluation of the current situation, EPA has determined
that these circumstances assure that the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E) and section 110(a)(2)(C) have been met.
(8) Comment: The proposed redesignation relies on an improper
NOX waiver. The NOX waiver provisions of section
182(f)(1)(A) are designed simply to ensure that NOX
reductions are not required in those limited circumstances where
NOX reductions can actually lead to increased ozone
concentrations. There has been no showing of a NOX
disbenefit in this proceeding and, therefore, a NOX waiver
is improper. There is no evidence suggesting that NOX
controls did not contribute to the purported attainment. Instead, the
[[Page 47420]]
evidence is clear that they did contribute and, therefore, a
NOX waiver is inappropriate.
Response: As described in EPA's January 14, 2005 policy, Guidance
on Limiting Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Requirements Related to 8-
Hour Ozone Implementation, section 182(f)(1) of the CAA provides that
the new NOX requirements shall not apply (or may be limited
to the extent necessary to avoid excess reductions) if the
Administrator determines that any one of the following tests is met:
(1) In any area, the net air quality benefits are greater in the
absence of NOX reductions from the sources concerned;
(2) in nonattainment areas not within an ozone transport region,
additional NOX reductions would not contribute to ozone
attainment in the area; or
(3) in nonattainment areas within an ozone transport region,
additional NOX reductions would not produce net ozone air
quality benefits in the transport region.
Based on the plain language of section 182(f), EPA believes that
each test provides an independent basis for receiving a full or limited
NOX exemption. Only the first test listed above is based on
a showing that NOX reductions result in a ``disbenefit.'' If
any one of the tests is met, the section 182(f) NOX
requirements would not apply.
In areas monitoring attainment of the ozone standard where section
182(f) NOX requirements were not implemented over that
three-year period, it is clear that the second test listed above is
met. Since attainment has already occurred, additional NOX
reductions could not improve the area's attainment status and,
therefore, the NOX exemption request can be approved.
The Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area is monitoring attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone standard and, over the three-year period used to
demonstrate attainment with the NAAQS (2006-2008), NOX RACT
emissions reduction requirements were not yet implemented in the area.
Therefore, the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area can clearly demonstrate that
``additional reductions of oxides of nitrogen would not contribute to
attainment.''
(9) Comment: Should EPA proceed with granting Ohio the
NOX waiver, the agency must clarify the scope of the waiver.
Ohio EPA's submissions suggest that the state is petitioning for a
waiver only of the NOX RACT requirements, not the other
NOX reductions required by section 182(f). In addition, EPA
must make clear that any NOX waiver is only, as Ohio EPA
requested, ``for the interim period between approval of this
redesignation request and approval of Ohio's NOX RACT
rules,'' and does not imply that NOX RACT requirements are
somehow lifted or will not be needed to bring the Cleveland-Akron-
Lorain area into attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS or any more
stringent ozone NAAQS that is developed in the future.
Response: As the commenter stated, Ohio EPA requested that EPA
grant a waiver from NOX RACT requirements for the Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain area. In this final action, EPA is approving a waiver from
only the NOX RACT requirements of section 182(f). This has
been clarified in both the summary and section III of this action.
Further, as stated in the proposal, EPA agrees with the commenter that
while Ohio need not adopt NOX RACT rules as a prerequisite
for redesignation with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, EPA
may in the future determine that NOX RACT rules are required
in this area with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.
III. What Action Is EPA Taking?
EPA is making a determination that the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area
has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also approving the
maintenance plan SIP revision for the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area.
EPA's approval of the maintenance plan is based on Ohio's demonstration
that the plan meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. After
evaluating Ohio's redesignation request, EPA has determined that it
meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA. Therefore, EPA is approving the redesignation of the
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also approving the 2002 base year emissions
inventory for the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area as meeting the
requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the CAA. EPA is approving a waiver
from the section 182(f) NOX RACT requirements in the
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area. EPA is also approving Ohio's 15% ROP plan
as meeting the requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the CAA for the 1-
hour ozone standard. Finally, EPA also finds adequate and is approving
the state's 2012 and 2020 MVEBs for the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause
for this action to become effective immediately upon publication. This
is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of
a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the area from certain CAA
requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective
date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which
provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days
after publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or
relieves a restriction,'' and section 553(d)(3) which allows an
effective date less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise
provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the
rule.'' The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section
553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their
behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule,
however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that
affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes
effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the state of planning
requirements for this 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. For these
reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this action
to become effective on the date of publication of this action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Executive Order 12866; Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This 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.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA does not impose any new requirements on
small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a
geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements
on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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 approves pre-existing requirements under state
law,
[[Page 47421]]
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).
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). Redesignation is an action that merely affects the status of
a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources,
or allows a state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This 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 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This 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.
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).
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. In
reviewing program submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Absent a prior
existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a program submission for
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the
Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a
geographical area but does not impose any new requirements on sources.
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.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., enacted
pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that, before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report which includes a
copy of the rule to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 16, 2009. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of the action. This
action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2).)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, Environmental protection, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: August 26, 2009.
Walter W. Kovalick Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
0
Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart KK--Ohio
0
2. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraphs (ff)(9), (hh)(2),
(ii) and (jj) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1885 Control strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(ff) * * *
(9) Approval--On March 17, 2009, and April 24, 2009, the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency submitted a request to redesignate the
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As
part of the redesignation request, the state submitted a maintenance
plan as required by section 175A of the Clean Air Act. Elements of the
section 175 maintenance plan include a contingency plan and an
obligation to submit a subsequent maintenance plan revision in 8 years
as required by the Clean Air Act. The 2012 motor vehicle emissions
budgets for the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area are 46.64 tpd for VOC and
95.89 tpd for NOX. The 2020 motor vehicle emissions budgets
for the area are 31.48 tpd for VOC and 42.75 tpd for NOX.
* * * * *
(hh) * * *
(2) Approval--Ohio's 2002 inventory satisfies the base year
emissions inventory requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air
Act for the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area under the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.
(ii) Approval--The 15 percent Volatile Organic Compound reasonable
further progress plan for the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain 1-hour ozone area,
submitted by Ohio on June 15, 2007, and February 22, 2008, satisfies
the
[[Page 47422]]
requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act.
(jj) Approval--EPA is approving exemptions under section 182(f)
from requirements for reasonably available control technology for
oxides of nitrogen for the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area with respect to the 1997 ozone standards. This
waiver was requested by Ohio on March 17, 2009.
PART 81--[AMENDED]
0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
4. Section 81.336 is amended by revising the entry for Cleveland-Akron-
Lorain, OH in the table entitled ``Ohio-Ozone (8-Hour Standard)'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 81.336 Ohio.
* * * * *
Ohio-Ozone
[8-Hour Standard]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation \a\ Classification
Designated area ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date\1\ Type Date\1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH:
Ashtabula County..........
Cuyahoga County........... 9/15/2009 Attainment.
Geauga County.............
Lake County...............
Lorain County.............
Medina County.............
Portage County............
Summit County.............
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-21818 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P