LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 6 1 6.0 Lime Softening 6.1 Introduction Lime softening is a drinking water treatment process that uses chemical precipitation with lime and other chemicals to reduce hardness and to enhance clarification prior to filtration. Lime softening can be categorized into two general types: ( 1) single stage softening that is used to remove calcium hardness and ( 2) two stage softening that is used to remove magnesium hardness and high levels of calcium hardness. A single stage softening plant includes a primary clarifier and filtration components. A two stage softening plant has an additional clarifier located between the primary clarifier and filter. Within these general categories there are several possible treatment schemes; however, describing each is beyond the scope of this chapter.

This toolbox option is practical for lime softening plants that either have a two stage process or could upgrade to a two stage process. The advantage of using this toolbox option to achieve compliance with the LT2ESWTR is that systems will have the treatment process in place or if an upgrade or modification is needed, it could benefit the treatment of other contaminants. A disadvantage for softening plants is a potential reduced flexibility in the treatment train since all water must be treated by both stages.

Since the water systems considering this toolbox option will most likely have a lime softening process in place, this section does not provide design or operational information. Instead, this section focuses on the requirements that lime softening systems must meet to receive Cryptosporidium removal credit and how those requirements can be met with general process modifications. The chapter is organized into two sections:

6.2 LT2ESWTR Compliance Requirements  describes the criteria that plants must meet in order to receive additional credit for Cryptosporidum removal, and reporting requirements to maintain compliance.

6.3 Split Flow Processes  addresses compliance issues for split flow processes. Chapter 6  Lime Softening 1 For purposes of compliance with the lime softening toolbox option, " clarifier" is used as a general term for processes with settling.

LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 6 2 Flocculation and Sedimentation Basin Recarbonation Flocculation and Sedimentation Basin Recarbonation Filters Lime CO2 CO2 Primary Clarifier Secondary Clarifier coagulant must be present Soda Ash coagulant must be present 6.2 LT2ESWTR Compliance Requirements 6.2.1 Credit for Cryptosporidium Removal The LT2ESWTR requires plants to meet the following criteria in order to receive 0.5 log credit towards additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements ( 40 CFR 141.726( b)):

° The plant must have a second clarification step between the primary clarifier1 and filter which is operated continuously. For split treatment processes, only the portion of flow going through two clarification stages can receive credit. If a portion of flow bypasses one stage, additional treatment must be provided to the bypassed portion ( see section 6.3).

° A coagulant must be present in both clarifiers. Precipitation of metal salts ( e. g., magnesium hydroxide or excess lime) could be considered a coagulant for the second clarifier.

Figure 6.1 shows a typical two stage lime softening process. Lime or lime and soda ash are added at the first stage. To receive treatment credit for this type of process, both stages of clarification must have a coagulant present.

Figure 6.1 Typical Two Stage Lime Softening Process Chapter 6  Lime Softening LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual Proposal Draft June 2003 6 3 6.2.2 Reporting Requirements The LT2ESWTR requires monthly verification and reporting of the following conditions for systems using the lime softening option ( 40 CFR 141.730):

° Continuous operation of a second clarification step between the primary clarifier and filter ° Continuous presence of coagulant in the first and second stage clarifiers ° Both clarifiers treat 100 percent of the plant flow In addition, EPA recommends submitting a schematic of the treatment process to the State, clearly identifying the two stages of clarification. EPA also recommends that systems monitor the coagulant dosages ( or concentration) in the secondary clarifier on a daily basis, for the first year, and record the average and minimum coagulant concentrations. This data can assist the State in assessing whether the system operates in compliance at all times.

6.3 Spilt Flow Processes Split flow processes divert a portion of the flow from either the first or second stage of the process and then blend the two streams together further downstream. Only the portion of flow that receives the two stages of treatment would be eligible for the 0.5 log credit. In these situations, systems would either have to: 1) eliminate the bypass and direct the entire flow through both stages, or 2) treat the bypassed portion with another toolbox option, such as chlorine dioxide, membranes, or ozone to receive 0.5 log credit for that stream.


[Federal Register: December 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 237)]
[Notices]
[Page 73464]
[DOCID:fr12de05-55]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-131-000]

El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

December 6, 2005.
    Take notice that on December 1, 2005, El Paso Natural Gas Company
(EPNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No. 1A, the following tariff sheets to become effective
January 1, 2006:

Original Sheet No. 284G.01
Substitute Original Sheet No. 284K.01

    EPNG states that these tariff sheets implement the pro forma tariff
provisions accepted by the Commission in Docket No. CP05-2-000.
    EPNG states that copies of the filing were served on parties on the
official service list in the above-captioned proceedings.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7209 Filed 12-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 143)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43180-43186]
[DOCID:fr24jy08-21]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1100; FRL-8697-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio; Removal
of Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs for Cincinnati and
Dayton

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Ohio to allow the State to
discontinue the vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in the
Cincinnati-Hamilton and Dayton-Springfield areas, also known as the E-
Check program. The revision specifically 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-
Hamilton and Dayton-Springfield ozone maintenance plans. The Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) submitted this request on
April 4, 2005, and supplemented it on May 20, 2005, February 14, 2006,
May 9, 2006, October 6, 2006, and February 19, 2008. EPA is proposing
to approve Ohio's request because the State has demonstrated that
discontinuing the I/M program in the Cincinnati-Hamilton and Dayton-
Springfield areas will not interfere with the attainment and
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) and the fine particulate NAAQS or with the attainment and
maintenance of other air quality standards.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 25, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2007-1100, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
(AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office 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 Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2007-1100. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
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 www.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
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Francisco J. Acevedo at<PHONE_NUMBER>
before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
    A. Submitting CBI
    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
II. What Are EPA's Proposed Actions?
III. What Changes to the Ohio SIP Have Been Submitted To Support the
Removal of the I/M Programs in the Cincinnati-Hamilton and Dayton-
Springfield Areas?
IV. What Criteria Apply to Ohio's Request?
V. Has Ohio Met the Criteria for Converting the I/M Programs in the
Cincinnati-Hamilton and Dayton-Springfield Areas to Contingency
Measures?
VI. What Are Our Conclusions Concerning the Removal of I/M Programs
in the Cincinnati-Hamilton and Dayton-Springfield Areas?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

A. Submitting CBI

    Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail
to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within 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 procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.

B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. 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.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What Are EPA's Proposed Actions?

    EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State
of Ohio to modify the SIP such that the vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program in the Cincinnati-Hamilton and Dayton-
Springfield areas, also known as the E-Check program, is no longer an
active program in these areas and is instead a contingency measure in
these areas' maintenance plans.

III. What Changes to the Ohio SIP Have Been Submitted To Support the
Removal of the I/M Programs in the Cincinnati-Hamilton and Dayton-
Springfield Areas?

    Ohio EPA submitted a revision to the Cincinnati-Hamilton and
Dayton-Springfield portions of the Ohio SIP on April 4, 2005. This
revision requested that the Ohio I/M programs in the Cincinnati-
Hamilton and Dayton-Springfield areas be moved from the active control
measures portion of the SIP to the contingency measures portion of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and the Dayton-
Springfield 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.
    The Cincinnati-Hamilton and Dayton-Springfield areas were required
to implement ``basic'' I/M programs under section 182(b)(4) of the Act
because they were originally designated as moderate 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas. In order to maximize nitrogen oxides
(NOX), volatile organic compound (VOC) and carbon monoxide
(CO) emissions reductions from the I/M program, Ohio EPA chose to
implement an ``enhanced'' program in those areas and 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 meet
nonattainment area requirements for the ozone NAAQS effective at the
time.\1\ As noted in other portions of this action, both the
Cincinnati-Hamilton and Dayton-Springfield areas have been redesignated
to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard and the Dayton-Springfield
area has also been redesignated to attainment for the .08 ppm 8-hour
ozone standard. The Cincinnati-Hamilton and Dayton-Springfield areas
have approved maintenance plans for the 1-hour standard and the Dayton
area has an approved maintenance plan for the .08 ppm 8-hour standard.
Both of these maintenance plans show how the areas plan to maintain the
standard without the need of emission reductions from E-Check.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although the E-Check program began on January 1, 1996, there
was a vehicle I/M program operating in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area
prior to that date, and prior to November 15, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Cincinnati ozone nonattainment area also includes three
counties (Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties) in Northern Kentucky.
The discontinuation of the I/M program in these Kentucky counties was
approved on October 4, 2005, at 70 FR 57750.

IV. What Criteria Apply to Ohio's Request?

    Areas designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS and classified
``moderate'' are required by the Clean Air Act to implement vehicle I/
M. See CAA section 182(b)(4).\2\ These areas are no longer designated
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. While Cincinnati-Hamilton
is designated nonattainment for the .08 ppm 8-hour standard, it is not
classified for that standard.\3\ Thus, these areas are not currently
subject to the I/M requirement based on their current nonattainment
classifications under the CAA and the state may move them to the
contingency measures portion of the SIP,\4\ provided the state can
satisfy the anti-backsliding requirements of the CAA (sections 110(l)
and 193) and EPA's ozone implementation rule, 40 CFR 51.905.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Certain areas classified ``marginal'' are also required to
implement I/M. See CAA section 182(a)(2)(B).
    \3\ Cincinnati-Hamilton was classified ``basic'' ( i.e., subject
to subpart 1) for the .08 ppm 8-hour standard but that
classification was vacated by a decision of the Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit. See South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v.
EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). EPA recently promulgated a .075
ppm 8-hour standard but no designations for that standard have been
made.
    \4\ As discussed below, the measures must be retained as
contingency measures because CAA section 175A requires that the
contingency measures portion of the SIP include a requirement that
the State will implement all measures that were part of the active
SIP at the time the area was redesignated to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 110(l) provides:

    Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State
under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable
notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a
revision to 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.

    In the absence of an attainment demonstration, to demonstrate no
interference with any applicable NAAQS or requirement of the Clean Air
Act under section 110(l), EPA believes it is appropriate to allow
States to substitute equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for
the control measure being moved from the active portion of the SIP to
the contingency measure portion of the SIP, as long as actual emissions
in the air are not increased.
    ``Equivalent'' emissions reductions mean reductions which are equal
to or greater than those reductions achieved by the control measure to
be removed from the active portion of the SIP. To show the compensating
emissions reductions are equivalent, modeling or adequate justification
must be provided. (EPA memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division, to the Air Directors in EPA Regions 1-10,
September 4, 1992, pages 10 and 13.) As stated in the notice proposing
approval to remove I/M from the active measures of the Northern
Kentucky SIP (70 FR 17029, 17033), the compensating, equivalent
reductions must represent actual, new emissions reductions achieved in
a contemporaneous time frame to the termination of the existing SIP
control measure, in order to preserve the status quo level of emissions
in the air. In addition to being contemporaneous, the equivalent
emissions reductions must also be permanent, enforceable, quantifiable,
and surplus to be approved into the SIP.
    Section 193 of the Act provides in part that:

    No control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by
an order, settlement agreement, or plan in effect before the date of
the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 in any area
which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be modified
after such enactment in any manner unless the modification insures
equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.

    In addition, EPA adopted anti-backsliding requirements as part of
the implementation rule for the .08 ppm 8-hour ozone standard. See 40
CFR 51.905. For areas, such as these, that were required under the Act
to implement basic I/M, EPA applies the provisions of the
implementation rule in concert with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.372(c).
    The provisions of 40 CFR 51.372(c) allow certain areas seeking
redesignation to submit only the authority for an I/M program (together
with certain commitments), rather than an implemented program, in
satisfaction of the applicable I/M requirements. Under these I/M rule
provisions, a basic I/M area (i.e., was required to adopt a basic I/M
program) 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 anti-
backsliding provisions in EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation rule
published April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858). A basic I/M area which is
designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, yet not required
to have an I/M program based on its 8-hour ozone classification,
continues to have the option to move its I/M program to a contingency
measure pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR 51.372(c), provided the 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area can demonstrate that doing so will not
interfere with its ability to comply with any NAAQS or any other
applicable Clean Air Act 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, entitled ``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
under the file date ``5-12-04.''

V. Has Ohio Met the Criteria for Converting the I/M Programs in the
Cincinnati-Hamilton and Dayton-Springfield Areas to Contingency
Measures?

    Both the Cincinnati-Hamilton area and the Dayton-Springfield area
have been redesignated to attainment with respect to the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. The Cincinnati-Hamilton area was redesignated to attainment of
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS on June 21, 2005 (70 FR 35946). The Dayton-
Springfield area was redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS on May 5, 1995 (60 FR 22289). On August 13, 2007 (72 FR 45169),
EPA approved the redesignation of the Dayton-Springfield area to
attainment with respect to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA approved
maintenance plans for each of these areas in connection with these
redesignations. 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 both cases, the conformity budget in the
maintenance plans reflects mobile source emissions without E-Check, and
the maintenance plans demonstrate that the applicable standard will
continue to be met without E-Check. In accordance with the Act and EPA
redesignation guidance, states are free to adjust control strategies in
the maintenance plan as long as they can satisfy section 110(l). With
such a demonstration of noninterference with attainment or other
applicable requirements, control

programs may be discontinued and removed from the SIP. 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 included in the contingency portion of the ozone
maintenance plan as required by section 175A(d). As part of its
submittal, Ohio EPA provided a demonstration showing continued
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone standard without taking credit for
reductions from the Cincinnati-Hamilton E-Check program, and continued
maintenance of the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards without taking
credit for reductions from the Dayton-Springfield E-Check program.
    As discussed above, EPA interprets its regulations as allowing
basic I/M areas such as these to have the option to move an I/M program
to a contingency measure pursuant to 40 CFR 51.372(c), provided that
moving I/M to contingency measures will not interfere with the area's
ability to comply with any NAAQS or any other applicable CAA
requirement (including section 193). Under 40 CFR 51.372(c), an area is
required to include in its submittal, with a request to place the I/M
program into the contingency measures: (1) Legal authority to implement
a basic I/M program; (2) a commitment by the Governor of the State, of
the Governor's designee, to adopt or consider adopting regulations to
implement an I/M program to correct a violation of the ozone or carbon
monoxide standard, in accordance with the maintenance plan; and (3) a
contingency commitment that includes an enforceable schedule, with
appropriate milestones, for adoption and implementation of an I/M
program.
    In the State's supplemental submittal of February 19, 2008, Ohio
EPA states that Ohio has retained the necessary legal authority to
implement I/M under Ohio Revised Code 3704.14(E). EPA examined the
applicable Ohio statutory language and concurs with Ohio's finding that
the State has the necessary legal authority to implement I/M if it
becomes necessary under the Clean Air Act to implement I/M as a
contingency measure. In addition, the State's supplemental submittal
includes a commitment by Ohio EPA to consider the adoption of E-Check
as a corrective measure should an ambient 1-hour ozone design value
trigger a contingency measure in the Cincinnati-Hamilton and Dayton-
Springfield areas, and the required program was determined by the State
to be an I/M program. The submittal also contains an I/M implementation
schedule in the event that I/M is selected by the State as a corrective
measure as required by 40 CFR 51.372(c).
    Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act dictates that EPA ``shall not
approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress * * * or any other applicable requirement''. The
discontinuation of E-Check will allow greater emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) from
certain sources than would continuation of the programs. As discussed
above, EPA interprets section 110(l) to require a demonstration that
the discontinuation of E-Check would not interfere with timely
attainment or with meeting other applicable requirements, and areas may
satisfy this requirement by adopting emissions reductions which are
equal to or greater than the emissions increases, as well as being
contemporaneous, permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, and surplus.
    In this case, the most significant relevant requirement is timely
attainment of the ozone air quality standard. Ohio has adopted several
measures that achieve equivalent, contemporaneous, permanent,
enforceable, quantifiable and surplus reductions to assure that the
discontinuation of E-Check, which occurred starting January 1, 2006,
will not interfere with timely attainment of the ozone air quality
standard. The emission reductions from Ohio's replacement measures that
are discussed in more detail below have been made permanent through
Ohio's rulemaking process. All the replacement measures are currently
in effect and establish obligatory requirements applicable to affected
groups. The emission reductions are enforceable by the State of Ohio as
of the State effective date of these regulations and they are all
Federally enforceable by EPA since all the replacement measures have
been approved into the Ohio SIP. In addition, the emission reductions
from the State's replacement measures are considered surplus because
they go beyond the reductions previously required in the Ohio SIP.
While ``contemporaneous'' is not explicitly defined in the Clean Air
Act, a reasonable interpretation is that the compensating, equivalent
emissions reductions should be in place within one year (prior to or
following) the cessation of the substituted control measure. Toward
that end, Ohio adopted various measures to reduce VOC emissions by the
start of the 2006 ozone season, including a rule requiring use of lower
emitting solvents in cold cleaner degreasers, a rule requiring the use
of more efficient paint application techniques for auto refinishing,
and a rule requiring that portable fuel containers be designed for less
volatilization and fuel spillage. EPA approved these rules on March 30,
2007, at 72 FR 15045.
    In addition, Ohio adopted a rule requiring use of low volatility
gasoline in the Cincinnati-Hamilton and Dayton-Springfield areas
beginning on June 1, 2006. However, in response to a lawsuit
challenging the rule, as well as a survey conducted by EPA of gasoline
suppliers in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas determining that there was
not enough low volatility gasoline to supply the areas during the 2006
ozone season, Ohio adopted amended rules to modify the implementation
date for the required use of low volatility gasoline to be one year
after the approval by EPA of a fuel waiver under CAA section
211(c)(4)(C). Since low volatility gasoline was no longer able to be
implemented in 2006, Ohio adopted a further rule to provide the
necessary reductions in 2006. This further rule retired 240 allowances
from the new source set aside for the ``NOX SIP Call''
trading program, creating a surplus reduction for ozone season 2006 of
240 tons of NOX emissions. Implementation of low volatility
gasoline was delayed further by enactment of the Energy Policy Act of
2005, which imposed new requirements on the EPA's approval of state
fuel programs. EPA approved Ohio's low vapor pressure gasoline rule on
May 25, 2007, at 72 FR 29269. Thus, given Ohio's adoption of a one year
delay between approval and implementation, low RVP gasoline was
implemented starting at the beginning of the 2008 ozone season.
    Ohio's supplemental submittal of February 19, 2008, summarizes its
estimates of the emission increases resulting from discontinuing E-
Check, and of the emission reductions from the various replacement
measures that they have adopted. Ohio provided separate estimates for
Cincinnati-Hamilton and for Dayton-Springfield, and addressed both VOC
and NOX. Ohio provided these estimates for 2006.
    For the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, Ohio estimated that the
discontinuation of E-Check would result in an increase of 5.2 tons per
day of VOC emissions and 4.4 tons per day of NOX emissions.
Based on modeling using MOBILE6 (EPA's mobile source emission factor
model), Ohio estimated that the use of low volatility gasoline would
reduce VOC emissions by 4.60 tons per day and

would reduce NOX emissions by 0.19 tons per day. Ohio
estimated that its regulation on cold solvent degreasing would reduce
VOC emissions by 2.57 tons per day, and Ohio estimated that its
regulation on auto refinishing would reduce VOC emissions by 0.44 tons
per day.
    Ohio's rule retiring 240 allowances from the ``NOX SIP
Call'' trading program serves to create a surplus reduction of 240 tons
of NOX. As set forth in the rulemaking approving the
retirement of the allowances [73 FR 8197], EPA believes that these
reductions can be associated with a portion of the substantial emission
reductions that have occurred in the Cincinnati-Hamilton and Dayton-
Springfield areas. (The remainder of the reductions would be attributed
to the NOX SIP Call.)
    The measures Ohio adopted do not fully compensate for the increase
in NOX emissions expected to result from discontinuation of
E-Check. On the other hand, the adopted measures provide VOC emission
reductions that more than compensate for the expected increase
attributable to the discontinuation of E-Check. Ohio seeks for EPA to
find that the extra VOC reductions will compensate for the effect on
ozone levels of the otherwise uncompensated portion of the increase in
NOX emissions expected to result from the discontinuation of
E-Check.
    EPA addresses the relationship between VOC and NOX
emissions in its guidance on reasonable further progress. This guidance
provides for states to assume, as an approximation, that equivalent
percent changes in the area's inventory for the respective pollutant
would yield an equivalent change in ozone levels; e.g., decreasing area
NOX emissions by 3 percent would have the same effect as
decreasing area VOC emissions by 3 percent. Stated another way, if an
area has twice as many tons of NOX emissions as of VOC
emissions, then 2 tons of NOX emissions would be assumed to
have the same effect on ozone as 1 ton of VOC emissions. Ohio applied
this approach to assess whether the reductions in VOC emissions are
sufficient to compensate not only for the VOC emissions increase from
discontinuing E-Check but also for the otherwise uncompensated portion
of the NOX emissions increase from discontinuing E-Check.
    According to Ohio's emission estimates, the number of tons of
NOX emissions in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area is 1.96 times
the number of tons of VOC emissions in the area. As noted above, the
NOX emission increase expected to result from
discontinuation of E-Check in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area is 4.4 tons
per day. Ohio estimated that low volatility gasoline will compensate
for 0.19 tons per day. The remaining 4.21 tons per day of
NOX emissions may be estimated to be equivalent to 2.15 tons
per day of VOC. Thus, for this approach to substitution, for the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area, Ohio would need to provide 5.2 tons per day
of VOC emission reduction to compensate for the VOC emissions impact of
discontinuing E-Check and 2.15 tons per day of VOC emission to
compensate for the otherwise uncompensated portion of the
NOX emission impact of discontinuing E-Check, for a total of
7.35 tons per day. The total reductions that Ohio's measures provide
are 7.61 tons per day. Thus, Ohio has demonstrated that it has provided
emission reductions that with respect to ozone have more than
compensated for the emission increases expected to result from the
discontinuation of E-Check.
    Ohio provided emission estimates for 2006. EPA believes that 2006
represents a worst case scenario. As the vehicle fleet becomes cleaner
over time, the impact of discontinuing E-Check will decline. On the
other hand, the emission reductions that Ohio's measures provide can be
expected to remain relatively constant and even to increase gradually
as source growth occurs. Therefore, EPA concludes that the combination
of discontinuing E-Check and use of low volatility gasoline and the
other control measures Ohio adopted will result in total emissions
levels which will not interfere with attainment of the ozone standard.
    Ohio found similar results for the Dayton-Springfield area. Ohio
estimated that the discontinuation of E-Check in the Dayton-Springfield
area would increase VOC emissions by 1.89 tons per day and
NOX emissions by 1.7 tons per day. Ohio estimated that use
of low volatility gasoline would reduce Dayton-Springfield area
emissions of VOC by 4.20 tons per day and of NOX by 0.20
tons per day. Ohio estimated that its rule regarding cold solvent
degreasing would reduce Dayton-Springfield area VOC emissions by 1.75
tons per day, and Ohio estimated that its rule regarding auto
refinishing would reduce Dayton-Springfield area VOC emissions by 0.30
tons per day. Thus the measures adopted by Ohio provide for a total of
6.25 tons per day of VOC emission decrease and 0.20 tons per day of
NOX emission decrease.
    According to Ohio's emissions estimates, the number of tons of
NOX emitted in the Dayton-Springfield area is 0.62 times the
number of tons of VOC emitted in the area. Thus, 1.5 tons per day of
NOX emissions (1.7 minus 0.2) would be considered equivalent
to 2.43 tons per day of VOC. Thus, under Ohio's approach, the total
necessary VOC emission reduction in the Dayton-Springfield area would
be 1.89 plus 2.43 or 4.32 tons per day. Ohio provides substantially
more reduction than this target. Thus, for the Dayton-Springfield area,
like for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, Ohio has provided sufficient
compensating emission reductions for EPA to conclude that the
discontinuation of E-Check in combination with the various measures
Ohio has adopted will not interfere with attainment of the ozone
standard.
    In addition, on August 13, 2007, at 72 FR 45169, EPA concluded that
Dayton-Springfield is meeting the .08 ppm ozone air quality standard
and redesignated this area to attainment for that standard. The
maintenance plan for this area shows that the area will continue to
attain the standard even with the discontinuation of E-Check. This
provides further support for the argument that discontinuing E-Check
will not interfere with attainment of the ozone standard in the Dayton-
Springfield area.
    EPA must also consider whether the discontinuation of E-Check would
interfere with timely attainment of the fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) air quality standard. Ohio addressed
PM2.5 by providing modeling evidence that the Cincinnati and
Dayton areas will achieve timely attainment of the PM2.5
standards. The modeling uses the Comprehensive Air Model with
Extensions (CAMX) and simulates emissions and
PM2.5 concentrations across much of the Eastern United
States. Model simulations were performed for a base year of 2005 and a
projection year of 2009. The base year simulations were performed to
assess model performance, i.e., to assess whether the model provides
adequately accurate and unbiased estimates of the concentrations of the
various PM2.5 components. The projection year simulations
provided information on the reductions in concentrations of the various
PM2.5 components that can be expected to result from various
anticipated emission reductions. Concentration estimates for 2009 were
then derived by using the model results in a relative sense,
determining a 2009 concentration for each PM2.5 component by
multiplying the base year concentration times the ratio of the model
estimates for 2009 versus for the base year, and then summing these
2009 component concentration estimates to

obtain a total projected 2009 PM2.5 concentration.
    The baseline concentrations used in the modeling reflect data from
2003 to 2007. In accordance with recommendations in EPA's modeling
guidance (``Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze''), quarterly mean concentrations
of PM2.5 were determined by first averaging concentrations
for 2003 to 2005, 2004 to 2005, and 2005 to 2007, and then averaging
these three three-year averages. The analysis also used measurements of
various species in order to determine the composition of the
PM2.5 for each of the four seasons of the year. The
components addressed include ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate,
organic particles, elemental carbon, other inorganic particulate
matter, and particle bound water. The analysis of composition includes
adjustments of the species measurements so as better to reflect the
quantity of the species that would be captured by the Federal Reference
Method (FRM). As two examples, the nitrate measurements were adjusted
to reflect volatilization of nitrates off FRM monitors, and the
measurements of the carbon portion of organic particles were adjusted
to add the non-carbon components of these particles. These seasonal
compositions were then applied to the quarterly weighted average
PM2.5 component concentrations to derive quarterly weighted
average component concentrations.
    The next step in the analysis was to use modeling to determine the
degree to which concentrations are expected to be reduced between the
baseline period and 2009. For each quarter for each PM2.5
component, for each monitoring location, a relative response factor was
computed, representing the ratio of the 2009 model estimate to the base
year model estimate.
    The final step in the analysis was to multiply the relative
response factor for each component times that component's weighted
average baseline concentration. This multiplication yields an estimate
of the concentration of the component in 2009. The sum of these
projected component concentrations represents the estimated 2009
concentration of PM2.5. An estimated 2009 PM2.5
concentration of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
represents a projection of attainment by that date.
    In the Cincinnati area, the monitors with the highest average
concentrations of PM2.5 are at the St. Bernard site in
Hamilton County (site number 39-061-8001) and at the Middletown site in
Butler County (site number 39-017-0003). The baseline, 5-year weighted
average PM2.5 concentrations at these sites were 17.6 and
16.2 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively. The projected 2009 PM2.5
concentrations at these sites were 14.7 and 13.5 [mu]g/m\3\,
respectively. In the Dayton area, the monitor with the highest average
concentration is at 215 East Third Street (site number 39-113-0032).
For this site, the baseline average concentration was 15.5 [mu]g/m\3\,
and the projected 2009 concentration was 13.2 [mu]g/m\3\. Projected
concentrations at other sites in these areas were lower. Thus, Ohio has
projected that both areas will attain the standard by 2009, which would
be timely (since the area was designated in 2005).
    This modeling analysis was based on an emissions inventory that
reflected no operation of E-Check in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas.
Consequently, the modeling indicates that these areas will attain the
standard by 2009 notwithstanding the discontinuation of E-Check in
these areas. EPA believes, based on Ohio's modeling analysis, that
discontinuation of E-Check in these areas will not interfere with
timely attainment of the PM2.5 standard in these areas.
    EPA also notes that for the reasons stated in EPA's rulemaking
concerning I/M for the Kentucky counties that are part of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton nonattainment area for ozone and PM2.5,
the measures providing equivalent emissions reductions, described in
detail above for ozone, should also provide equivalent emission
reductions for PM2.5. See 70 FR 17029, 17035 (April 4, 2005)
(EPA's proposed approval of request to move I/M from the active
measures to contingency measures of the Northern Kentucky SIP).
    Ohio was required, pursuant to Sections 172(b) and 172(c) of the
Clean Air Act, to submit a plan by April 2008 that provides for timely
attainment of the PM2.5 standard. EPA expects that Ohio will
make a separate submittal to address this requirement. Although EPA
expects that submittal to include a modeling analysis that is very
similar to the modeling discussed here, EPA expects that the future
submittal will provide weight-of-evidence analyses to assess whether
other types of evidence corroborate these modeling results. EPA also
expects that Ohio will hold a public hearing to obtain any public
comments on this modeling. Therefore, EPA is not rulemaking here on
whether Ohio has satisfied the requirement for a plan providing for
timely attainment. Today's action uses these modeling results only to
address the issue of whether discontinuation of E-Check will interfere
with timely attainment of the PM2.5 standards.
    EPA believes that discontinuation of E-Check will clearly not
interfere with Ohio meeting other Clean Air Act requirements.
Discontinuation of E-Check will not cause any increase in emissions of
sulfur dioxide or lead, and any impact on emissions of carbon monoxide
is expected to be relatively small. Furthermore, the concentrations of
these pollutants and for nitrogen dioxide in the Cincinnati and Dayton
areas are less than half of the applicable air quality standards.
Therefore, discontinuation of E-Check will not interfere with
attainment of any of these air quality standards. The rationale for
finding noninterference with timely attainment also supports finding
that the revisions will not interfere with achievement of reasonable
further progress toward attainment. Other requirements such as for
reasonably available control technology are not affected by whether E-
Check is in place. Therefore, EPA believes that the combination of
actions requested by Ohio, including discontinuation of E-Check and
adoption of control measures such as reducing gasoline volatility, will
not interfere with Ohio meeting applicable requirements.
    Section 193 of the Act applies to the removal of the I/M program in
the Cincinnati-Hamilton nonattainment area. For the reasons described
above, however, EPA believes that Ohio has adopted equivalent,
offsetting reductions which satisfy section 193.

VI. What Are Our Conclusions Concerning the Removal of I/M Programs in
the Cincinnati-Hamilton and Dayton-Springfield Areas?

    We are proposing to find 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 ozone NAAQS and the fine particulate NAAQS and with
the attainment and maintenance of other air quality standards and
requirements of the CAA. We are proposing further to approve Ohio's
request to modify the SIP such that I/M is no longer an active program
in these areas and is instead a contingency measure in these areas'
maintenance plans.
    As noted above, the Cincinnati area is currently designated
nonattainment for ozone but is not classified. Pursuant to a decision
of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the

case of South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA (472 F.3d 882
(D.C. Cir. 2006)), EPA will be reevaluating the classification of ozone
nonattainment areas that were formerly classified as ``basic'' (i.e.
under subpart 1) for the .08 ppm standard. One possible outcome could
be the reestablishment of a requirement for I/M for the Cincinnati
area.\5\ However, for the reasons stated above, EPA believes that Ohio
has satisfied currently applicable criteria for discontinuing I/M in
the Cincinnati and Dayton areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Because the Dayton area is designated attainment for the
0.08 ppm 8-hour ozone standard, EPA's future classification rule for
that standard would not aply to that area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: July 16, 2008.
Walter W. Kovalick Jr,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E8-16987 Filed 7-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P