[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