[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6035-6041]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01733]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0648; EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0834; FRL-9773-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio and Indiana; Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH; Ohio and Indiana 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan Revisions to Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the request by Ohio and Indiana to revise the
Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance air quality State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to replace the previously approved motor
vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) with budgets developed using EPA's
Motor

Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) emissions model. The Ohio and
Indiana portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area include the Ohio
Counties of Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton and Warren, Ohio, and
Lawrenceburg Township in Dearborn County, Indiana. Ohio submitted the
SIP revision request to EPA on June 29, 2012. Indiana submitted the SIP
revision request for parallel processing in a letter dated October 12,
2012, and followed up with a final submittal on December 11, 2012. Ohio
and Indiana have submitted identical budgets which cover the Ohio and
Indiana portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 ozone maintenance
area.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective April 1, 2013, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by February 28, 2013. If adverse comments
are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0648 for Ohio and EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0834 for Indiana, by one of
the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (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-
2012-0648 and EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0834. 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 email. 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 email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email 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.
    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 Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 is EPA approving?
II. What is the background for this action?
    a. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity
    b. Prior Approval of Budgets
    c. The MOVES Emissions Model and Regional Transportation
Conformity Grace Period
    d. Submission of New Budgets Based on MOVES2010a
III. What are the criteria for approval?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?
    a. The Revised Inventories
    b. Approvability of the MOVES2010a-based Budgets
    c. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-based Budgets
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is EPA approving?

    EPA is approving new MOVES2010a-based budgets for the Ohio and
Indiana portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana,
1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area. The Ohio and Indiana portions of
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area were redesignated to attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone standard effective May 11, 2010 (75 FR 26118), and
MOBILE6.2-based budgets were approved in that action. The newly
submitted MOVES2010a-based budgets will replace the existing MOBILE6.2-
based budgets in the Ohio and Indiana 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance
plans and must then be used in future transportation conformity
analyses for the area. At that time, the previously approved MOBILE6.2
based budgets would no longer be applicable for transportation
conformity purposes.
    The Ohio and Indiana portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 8-
hour ozone maintenance area must use the MOVES2010a-based budgets
starting on the effective date of this rulemaking. See the official
release of the MOVES2010 emissions model (75 FR 9411-9414, March 2,
2010) for background, and section II.(c) below for details.

II. What is the background for this action?

a. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), states are required to submit, at
various times, control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for
nonattainment and maintenance areas for a given National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). These emission control strategy SIP revisions
(e.g., reasonable further progress (RFP) and attainment demonstration
SIP revisions) and maintenance plans include budgets of on-road mobile
source emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to
address pollution from cars, trucks, and other on-road vehicles. These
mobile source SIP budgets are the portions of the total emissions that
are allocated to on-road vehicle use that,

together with emissions from other sources in the area, will provide
for attainment or maintenance if they are not exceeded. The budget
serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation
system. For more information about budgets, see the preamble to the
November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188).
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation plans,
Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), and transportation projects
must ``conform'' to (i.e., be consistent with) the SIP before they can
be adopted or approved. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation
activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing
air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or
delay an interim milestone. The transportation conformity regulations
can be found at 40 CFR part 51 subpart T, and part 93.
    In general, before budgets can be used in conformity
determinations, EPA must affirmatively find the budgets adequate.
However, budgets that are replacing approved budgets must be found
adequate and approved before budgets can replace older budgets. If the
submitted SIP budgets are meant to replace budgets for the same
purpose, as is the case with Ohio's and Indiana's MOVES2010a 1997 8-
hour ozone maintenance plan budgets, EPA must approve the revised SIP
and budgets, and must affirm that they are adequate at the same time.
Once EPA approves revised budgets into the SIP, they must be used by
state and Federal agencies in determining whether transportation
activities conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
EPA's substantive criteria for determining the adequacy of budgets are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).

b. Prior Approval of Budgets

    EPA had previously approved budgets for the Ohio and Indiana
portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, 8-hour ozone maintenance area for
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)
for the year 2015 and 2020 on May 11, 2010 (75 FR 26118). These budgets
were based on EPA's MOBILE6.2 emissions model. The ozone maintenance
plan established 2015 and 2020 budgets for the Ohio and Indiana
portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, area. The 2015 approved budgets of
31.73 tons per day (tpd) for VOCs and 49.00 tpd for NOX and
the 2020 budgets of 28.82 tpd VOCs and 34.39 tpd NOX were
approved in the May 11, 2010, rulemaking. These budgets demonstrated a
reduction in emissions from the monitored attainment year and included
a margin of safety.

c. The MOVES Emissions Model and Regional Transportation Conformity
Grace Period

    The MOVES model is EPA's state of the art tool for estimating
highway emissions. The model is based on analyses of millions of
emission test results and considerable advances in the agency's
understanding of vehicle emissions. MOVES incorporates the latest
emissions data, more sophisticated calculation algorithms, increased
user flexibility, new software design, and significant new capabilities
relative to those reflected in MOBILE6.2.
    EPA announced the release of MOVES2010 in March 2010 (75 FR 9411).
EPA subsequently released two minor model revisions: MOVES2010a in
September 2010 and MOVES2010b in April 2012. Both of these minor
revisions enhance model performance and do not significantly affect the
criteria pollutant emissions results from MOVES2010. MOVES will be
required for new regional emissions analyses for transportation
conformity determinations (``regional conformity analyses'') outside of
California that begin after March 2, 2013, or when EPA approves MOVES-
based budgets, whichever comes first.\1\ The MOVES grace period for
regional conformity analyses applies to both the use of MOVES2010 and
approved minor revisions (e.g., MOVES2010a and MOVES2010b). For more
information, see EPA's ``Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 and
Subsequent Minor Model Revisions for State Implementation Plan
Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes'' (April
2012), available online at: www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm#models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Upon the release of MOVES2010, EPA established a two-year
grace period before MOVES is required to be used for regional
conformity analyses (75 FR 9411, March 2, 2010). EPA subsequently
promulgated a final rule on February 27, 2012 to provide an
additional year before MOVES is required for these analyses (77 FR
11394). In this case the grace period ends on March 2, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has encouraged areas to examine how MOVES would affect future
transportation plan and TIP conformity determinations so, if necessary,
SIPs and budgets could be revised with MOVES or transportation plans
and TIPs could be revised (as appropriate) prior to the end of the
regional transportation conformity grace period. EPA has also
encouraged state and local air agencies to consider how the release of
MOVES would affect analyses supporting SIP submissions under
development (77 FR 9411, March 2, 2010 and 77 FR 11394, February 27,
2012).
    The Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI),
which is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area, has used MOVES2010a emission rates with the
transportation network information to estimate emissions in the years
of the transportation plan and also for the SIP. The budgets have been
revised using the latest planning assumptions including population and
employment updates. In addition, newer vehicle registration data has
been used to update the age distribution of the vehicle fleet. Since
MOVES2010 (or a minor model revision) will be required for conformity
analyses after the grace period ends, OKI has concluded that updating
the budgets with MOVES2010a will prepare the area for the transition to
using MOVES for conformity analyses and determinations. The interagency
consultation group has had extensive consultation on the requirements
and need for new budgets.

d. Submission of New Budgets Based on MOVES2010a

    On June 29, 2012, Ohio submitted in final replacement budgets based
on MOVES2010a that cover the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton
area. Ohio received no comments during the public review and comment
period. On October 12, 2012, Indiana submitted for parallel processing
replacement budgets based on MOVES2010a that cover the Indiana portion
of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Indiana received no comments during
their subsequent public review and comment period. Indiana submitted
the final SIP revision request to EPA on December 11, 2012.
    The MOVES2010a-based budgets will replace the prior approved
MOBILE6.2-based budgets and are for the same years and pollutants/
precursors. The new MOVES2010a-based budgets are for the years 2015 and
2020 for both VOCs and NOX and are detailed in Table 3 of
this notice. Ohio and Indiana have also provided total emissions
including mobile emissions based on MOVES2010a, for the attainment year
of 2005, the 2015 budget year, and the 2020 maintenance year. The
safety margin is defined as the reduction in emissions from the base
year (in this case the 2005 attainment year) to the final year of the
maintenance plan (in this case the 2020 year). The total emissions
include point, area, non-road mobile and on-road mobile sources. The

available safety margin is shown in Table 1.

   Table 1--Table of Total Emissions With MOVES2010a Mobile Emissions
                           Cincinnati-Hamilton
                          [Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Safety
                Year                    2005     2015     2020    Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC.................................   237.77   174.59   162.47    65.39
NOX.................................   389.99   309.41   289.20    38.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OKI has added only a small portion of the overall safety margin
available for NOX and VOCs to the budgets for 2015 and 2020.
The submittal demonstrates how all emissions decline from the
attainment year of 2005. In 2005, the total estimated NOX
emissions from all sources (including mobile, point, area, and non-road
sources) is 389.99 tpd and the total VOC emissions, for the 2005
attainment year, from all sources is 237.77 tpd. The 2020 estimated
emissions for total NOX from all sources is 289.20 tpd and
the total VOC emissions from all sources is 162.47 tpd. This reduction
in emissions demonstrates that the area will continue below the
attainment level of emissions and maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. The mobile source emissions, when included with point, area,
and non-road sources continue to demonstrate maintenance of the
attainment level of emissions in the Ohio and Indiana portions of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area.
    No additional control measures were needed to maintain the 1997
ozone standard in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. An appropriate safety
margin for NOX and VOCs was decided by the interagency
consultation group (the interagency consultation group as required by
the state conformity agreement consists of representatives from the
Federal Highway Administration, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA), Ohio Department of Transportation, Indiana Department of
Transportation, Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)
and EPA). The submitted budgets for the Ohio and Indiana portions of
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area are 94.25 tpd for NOX and 56.06
tpd for VOCs in the year 2015; and 73.13 tpd for NOX and
42.81 tpd for VOCs in the year 2020 (see Table 3). These budgets will
continue to keep emissions in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area below the
calculated attainment year of emissions.

III. What are the criteria for approval?

    EPA requires that revisions to existing SIPs and budgets continue
to meet applicable requirements (e.g., RFP, attainment, or
maintenance). States that revise their existing SIPs to include MOVES
budgets must therefore show that the SIP continues to meet applicable
requirements with the new level of motor vehicle emissions contained in
the budgets. The SIP must also meet any applicable SIP requirements
under CAA section 110.
    In addition, the transportation conformity rule (at 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)(iv)) requires that ``the budgets, when considered together
with all other emissions sources, is consistent with applicable
requirements for RFP, attainment, or maintenance (whichever is relevant
to the given implementation plan submission).'' This and the other
adequacy criteria found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) must be satisfied before
EPA can find submitted budgets adequate and approve them for conformity
purposes.
    In addition, areas can revise their budgets and inventories using
MOVES without revising their entire SIP if (1) the SIP continues to
meet applicable requirements when the previous motor vehicle emissions
inventories are replaced with MOVES base year and milestone,
attainment, or maintenance year inventories, and (2) the state can
document that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor
vehicle sources continue to be valid and any minor updates do not
change the overall conclusions of the SIP. For example, the first
criterion could be satisfied by demonstrating that the emissions
reductions between the baseline/attainment year and maintenance year
are the same or greater using MOVES than they were previously. The Ohio
and Indiana submittals meet this requirement as described below in
section IV.
    For more information, see EPA's latest ``Policy Guidance on the Use
of MOVES2010 for SIP Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other
Purposes'' (April 2012), available online at: www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm#models.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of the state's submittal?

a. The Revised Inventories

    The Ohio SIP revision and the Indiana SIP revision requests for the
Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 ozone maintenance plans seek to revise only
the on-road mobile source inventories and not the non-road inventories,
area source inventories or point source inventories for the 2015 and
2020 years for which the SIP revises the budgets. OEPA and IDEM have
certified that the control strategies remain the same as in the
original SIP, and that no other control strategies are necessary. This
is confirmed by the monitoring data for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area,
which continues to monitor attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. Thus, the current control strategies are continuing to keep
the area in attainment of the NAAQS.
    EPA has reviewed the emission estimates for point, area, and non-
road sources and concluded that no major changes to the projections
need to be made. Ohio and Indiana find that growth and control strategy
assumptions for non-mobile sources (i.e., area, non-road, and point)
have not changed significantly from the original submittal for the
years 2005, 2015, and 2020. As a result, the growth and control
strategy assumptions for the non-mobile sources for the years 2005,
2015, and 2020 continue to be valid and do not affect the overall
conclusions of the plan.
    Ohio's and Indiana's submissions confirm that the SIP continues to
demonstrate its purpose of maintaining the 1997 ozone standard because
the emissions are continuing to decrease from the attainment year to
the final year of the maintenance plan. The total emissions in the
revised SIP (which includes MOVES2010a emissions from mobile sources)
are 389.99 tpd for NOX and 237.77 tpd for VOCs in the 2005
attainment year. The total emissions from all sources in the 2015 year
are 309.41 tpd for NOX and 174.59 tpd for VOCs. These totals
demonstrate that emissions in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area are
continuing to decline and remain below the attainment levels.
    Ohio and Indiana have submitted MOVES2010a-based budgets for the
Ohio and Indiana portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area that are
clearly identified in the submittals. The on-road budgets for 2015 are
94.25 tpd for NOX and 56.06 tpd for VOCs. The on-road
budgets for 2020 are 73.13 tpd for NOX and 42.81 tpd for
VOCs. The budgets are also displayed in Table 3.

b. Approvability of the MOVES2010a-based Budgets

    EPA is approving the MOVES2010a-based budgets submitted by Ohio and
Indiana for use in determining transportation conformity in the Ohio
and Indiana portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 ozone maintenance
area. EPA is making this approval based on our evaluation of these
budgets using the adequacy criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and
our in-depth evaluation

of the State's submittals and SIP requirements. EPA has determined,
based on its evaluation, that the area's maintenance plans would
continue to serve its intended purpose with the submitted MOVES2010a-
based budgets and that the budgets themselves meet the adequacy
criteria in the conformity rule at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
    The adequacy criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) are as follows:
     The submitted SIP was endorsed by [the Governor/Governor's
designee] and was subject to a state public hearing (Sec.
93.118(e)(4)(i));
     Before the control strategy implementation plan was
submitted to EPA, consultation among Federal, state, and local agencies
occurred, and the state fully documented the submittal (Sec.
93.118(e)(4)(ii));
     The budgets are clearly identified and precisely
quantified (Sec.  93.118(e)(4)(iii));
     The budgets, when considered together with all other
emissions sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for RFP,
attainment, or maintenance (Sec.  93.118(e)(4)(iv));
     The budgets are consistent with and clearly related to the
emissions inventory and control measures in the control strategy
implementation plan (Sec.  93.118(e)(4)(v); and
     The revisions explain and document changes to the previous
budgets, impacts on point and area source emissions and changes to
established safety margins and reasons for the changes (including the
basis for any changes related to emission factors or vehicle miles
traveled) (Sec.  93.118(e)(4)(vi).
    We find that Ohio and Indiana have met all of the adequacy
criteria. Public hearing materials were submitted with the formal SIP
revision request. The interagency consultation group, which is composed
of the state air agencies, state departments of transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, EPA, and the MPO for the area, has discussed
and reviewed the budgets developed with MOVES2010a and the safety
margin allocation. The budgets are clearly identified and precisely
quantified in the submittals. The budgets when considered with other
emissions sources (point, area, non-road) are consistent with continued
maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard. The budgets are clearly related
to the emissions inventory and control measures in the SIP. The changes
from the previous budgets are clearly explained with the change in the
model from MOBILE6.2 to MOVES2010a and the revised and updated planning
assumptions. The inputs to the model are detailed in the Appendix to
the submittal. EPA has reviewed the inputs to the MOVES2010a modeling
and participated in the consultation process. The Federal Highway
Administration and the Ohio and Indiana Departments of Transportation
have taken a lead role in working with the MPO to provide accurate,
timely information and inputs to the MOVES2010a model runs. The OKI
network model provided the vehicle miles of travel and other necessary
data from the travel demand network model.
    The CAA requires that revisions to existing SIPs and budgets
continue to meet applicable requirements (in this case, maintenance).
Therefore, states that revise existing SIPs with MOVES must show that
the SIP continues to meet applicable requirements with the new level of
motor vehicle emissions calculated by the new model.
    To that end, Ohio's and Indiana's submitted MOVES2010a based
budgets meet EPA's two criteria for revising budgets without revising
the entire SIP:
    (1) The SIP continues to meet applicable requirements when the
previous motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with
MOVES2010a base year and milestone, attainment, or maintenance year
inventories, and
    (2) The state can document that growth and control strategy
assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid and any
minor updates do not change the overall conclusions of the SIP.
    Indiana and Ohio have documented that growth and control strategy
assumptions continue to be valid and do not change the overall
conclusions of the maintenance plan. The emission estimates for point,
area, and non-road sources have not changed. Indiana and Ohio find that
growth and control strategy assumptions for non-mobile sources (i.e.
area, non-road, and point) from the original submittal for the years
2005, 2015, and 2020 were developed before the downturn in the economy
over the last several years. Because of this, the factors included in
the original submittal may project more growth than actual into the
future. As a result, the growth and control strategy assumptions for
the non-mobile sources for the years 2005, 2015, and 2020 continue to
be valid and do not affect the overall conclusions of the plan.
    Ohio's and Indiana's submissions confirm that the SIP continues to
demonstrate its purpose of maintaining the 1997 ozone standard because
the emissions are continuing to decrease from the attainment year to
the final year of the maintenance plan. The total emissions in the
revised SIP (which includes MOVES2010a emissions for mobile sources)
decrease from the 2005 attainment year to the year 2020 (the last year
of the maintenance plan). These totals demonstrate that emissions in
the Cincinnati-Hamilton area are continuing to decline and remain below
the attainment levels. Table 2 displays total emissions in the Ohio and
Indiana portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area including point, area,
non-road, and mobile sources and demonstrates the declining emissions
from the 2005 attainment year.

   Table 2--Table of Total Emissions With MOVES2010a Mobile Emissions
                          [Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Year                        2005     2015     2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC..........................................   237.77   174.59   162.47
NOX..........................................   389.99   309.41   289.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following table (Table 3) displays the submitted budgets (Ohio
and Indiana submitted budgets that cover both the Ohio and Indiana
portions of the area) that are proposed in the notice to be approved.
The budgets include an appropriate margin of safety while still
maintaining total emissions below the attainment level.

  Table 3--Table of Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MOVES) for the Ohio
     and Indiana Portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 Ozone Area
                          [Tons per summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Year                            2015       2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC...............................................      56.06      42.81
NOX...............................................      94.25      73.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the SIPs and the new budgets provided, EPA
has determined that the SIPs will continue to meet the requirements if
the revised motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with
MOVES2010a inventories.

c. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-based Budgets

    Pursuant to the state's requests, EPA's approval of the revised
budgets means that the existing MOBILE6.2-based budgets will no longer
be applicable for transportation conformity purposes upon the effective
date of this approval.
    In addition, upon this EPA approval of the MOVES2010a-based
budgets, the regional transportation conformity grace period for using
MOBILE6 instead of MOVES2010 (and subsequent minor

revisions) for the pollutants included in these budgets ends for the
Ohio and Indiana portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton ozone maintenance
area.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For more information, see EPA's ``Policy Guidance on the Use
of MOVES2010 and Subsequent Minor Revisions for State Implementation
Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes''
(April 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the 2015 and 2020 submitted budgets for the Ohio
and Indiana portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 ozone maintenance
plans. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective April 1, 2013
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by February 28, 2013. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective April
1, 2013.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely 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 CAA; 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 1, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 11, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. The table in Sec.  52.770 paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry in alphabetical order for ``Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN 1997 8-
hour ozone maintenance plan'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                           EPA-Approved Indiana Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Title                         Indiana date              EPA Approval                                Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN 1997 8-   .........................  1/29/12, [INSERT PAGE     Revision to motor vehicle emission budgets.
 hour ozone maintenance plan.                                       NUMBER WHERE THE
                                                                    DOCUMENT BEGINS].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.777 is amended by redesignating paragraph (oo) as
paragraph (oo)(1) and by adding paragraph (oo)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.777  Control strategy: photochemical oxidants (hydrocarbons).

* * * * *
    (oo)(1) * * *
    (2) Approval--On December 11, 2012, Indiana submitted a request to
revise the approved MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emission budgets (budgets)
in the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Indiana portion of
the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN maintenance area. The budgets are
being revised with budgets developed with the MOVES2010a model. The
2015 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Ohio and Indiana portions
are 56.06 tpd VOC and 94.25 tpd NOX. The 2020 motor vehicle
emissions budgets for the Ohio and Indiana portions of the area are
42.81 tpd VOC and 73.13 tpd for NOX.

0
4. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraph (ff)(12) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1885  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (ff) * * *
    (12) Approval--On June 29, 2012, Ohio submitted a request to revise
the approved MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emission budgets (budgets) in the
1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Ohio and Indiana portions of
the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN 8-hour ozone area. The budgets are
being revised with budgets developed with the MOVES2010a model. The
2015 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Ohio and Indiana portions
are 56.06 tpd VOC and 94.25 tpd NOX. The 2020 motor vehicle
emissions budgets for the Ohio and Indiana portions of the area are
42.81 tpd VOC and 73.13 tpd for NOX.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-01733 Filed 1-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.

0
8. Section 63.6155 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and paragraphs (a)(3) through (5) and adding paragraphs (a)(6),
(a)(7), and (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.6155   What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records as described in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (7) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) Before September 8, 2020, records of the occurrence and
duration of each startup, shutdown, or malfunction as required in Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(i).
    (4) Before September 8, 2020, records of the occurrence and
duration of each malfunction of the air pollution control equipment, if
applicable, as required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(ii).
    (5) Records of all maintenance on the air pollution control
equipment as required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(iii).
    (6) After September 8, 2020, records of the date, time, and
duration of each startup period, recording the periods when the
affected source was subject to the standard applicable to startup.
    (7) After September 8, 2020, keep records as follows.
    (i) Record the number of deviations. For each deviation, record the
date, time, cause, and duration of the deviation.
    (ii) For each deviation, record and retain a list of the affected
sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated
pollutant emitted over any emission limit and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions.
    (iii) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec.  63.6105(c), and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
    (d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.

0
9. Section 63.6170 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(6) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.6170   Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (6) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the
EPA required by this subpart.
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.6175 is amended by revising the definition for
``Deviation'' and adding a definition for ``Startup'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.6175   What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation or
operating limitation;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an

applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the
operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a
permit;
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limitation or operating limitation
in this subpart during malfunction, regardless of whether or not such
failure is permitted by this subpart;
    (4) Before September 8, 2020, fails to satisfy the general duty to
minimize emissions established by Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i), or
    (5) After September 8, 2020, fails to satisfy the general duty to
minimize emissions established by Sec.  63.6105.
* * * * *
    Startup begins at the first firing of fuel in the stationary
combustion turbine. For simple cycle turbines, startup ends when the
stationary combustion turbine has reached stable operation or after 1
hour, whichever is less. For combined cycle turbines, startup ends when
the stationary combustion turbine has reached stable operation or after
3 hours, whichever is less. Turbines in combined cycle configurations
that are operating as simple cycle turbines must meet the startup
requirements for simple cycle turbines while operating as simple cycle
turbines.
* * * * *

0
11. Table 1 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 1 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63--Emission Limitations

    As stated in Sec.  63.6100, you must comply with the following
emission limitations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   For each new or reconstructed
   stationary combustion turbine         You must meet the following
 described in Sec.   63.6100 which        emission limitations . . .
              is . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. a lean premix gas-fired           limit the concentration of
 stationary combustion turbine as     formaldehyde to 91 ppbvd or less
 defined in this subpart,             at 15-percent O2, except during
2. a lean premix oil-fired            turbine startup. The period of
 stationary combustion turbine as     time for turbine startup is
 defined in this subpart,             subject to the limits specified in
3. a diffusion flame gas-fired        the definition of startup in Sec.
 stationary combustion turbine as      63.6175.
 defined in this subpart, or
4. a diffusion flame oil-fired
 stationary combustion turbine as
 defined in this subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
12. Table 2 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 2 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63--Operating Limitations

    As stated in Sec. Sec.  63.6100 and 63.6140, you must comply with
the following operating limitations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               For . . .                          You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. each stationary combustion turbine    maintain the 4-hour rolling
 that is required to comply with the      average of the catalyst inlet
 emission limitation for formaldehyde     temperature within the range
 and is using an oxidation catalyst.      suggested by the catalyst
                                          manufacturer. You are not
                                          required to use the catalyst
                                          inlet temperature data that is
                                          recorded during engine startup
                                          in the calculations of the 4-
                                          hour rolling average catalyst
                                          inlet temperature.
2. each stationary combustion turbine    maintain any operating
 that is required to comply with the      limitations approved by the
 emission limitation for formaldehyde     Administrator.
 and is not using an oxidation catalyst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
13. Table 3 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 3 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests
and Initial Compliance Demonstrations

    As stated in Sec.  63.6120, you must comply with the following
requirements for performance tests and initial compliance
demonstrations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      According to the
       You must . . .              Using . . .            following
                                                     requirements . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. demonstrate formaldehyde   Test Method 320 of    formaldehyde
 emissions meet the emission   40 CFR part 63,       concentration must
 limitations specified in      appendix A; ASTM      be corrected to 15-
 Table 1 by a performance      D6348-12e1 \1\        percent O2, dry
 test initially and on an      provided that the     basis. Results of
 annual basis AND.             test plan             this test consist
                               preparation and       of the average of
                               implementation        the three 1-hour
                               provisions of         runs. Test must be
                               Annexes A1 through    conducted within 10
                               A8 are followed and   percent of 100-
                               the %R as             percent load.
                               determined in Annex
                               A5 is equal or
                               greater than 70%
                               and less than or
                               equal to 130%; \2\
                               or other methods
                               approved by the
                               Administrator.
b. select the sampling port   Method 1 or 1A of 40  if using an air
 location and the number of    CFR part 60,          pollution control
 traverse points AND.          appendix A.           device, the
                                                     sampling site must
                                                     be located at the
                                                     outlet of the air
                                                     pollution control
                                                     device.
c. determine the O2           Method 3A or 3B of    measurements to
 concentration at the          40 CFR part 60,       determine O2
 sampling port location AND.   appendix A; ANSI/     concentration must
                               ASME PTC 19.10-1981   be made at the same
                               \1\ (Part 10)         time as the
                               manual portion        performance test.
                               only; ASTM D6522-11
                               \1\ if the turbine
                               is fueled by
                               natural gas.

d. determine the moisture     Method 4 of 40 CFR    measurements to
 content at the sampling       part 60, appendix A   determine moisture
 port location for the         or Test Method 320    content must be
 purposes of correcting the    of 40 CFR part 63,    made at the same
 formaldehyde concentration    appendix A, or ASTM   time as the
 to a dry basis.               D6348-12e1 \1\.       performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec.   63.14.
\2\ The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report,
  and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R
  value for that compound using the following equation:
Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in Stack)/(%R)) x 100.

0
14. Table 7 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 7 to Subpart YYYY of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
to Subpart YYYY

    You must comply with the applicable General Provisions
requirements:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Citation                     Subject             Applies to subpart YYYY            Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1..................  General applicability of  Yes..........................  Additional terms defined
                                the General Provisions.                                  in Sec.   63.6175.
Sec.   63.2..................  Definitions.............  Yes..........................  Additional terms defined
                                                                                in Sec.   63.6175.
Sec.   63.3..................  Units and abbreviations.  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.4..................  Prohibited activities...  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.5..................  Construction and          Yes..........................
                                reconstruction.
Sec.   63.6(a)...............  Applicability...........  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4)........  Compliance dates for new  Yes..........................
                                and reconstructed
                                sources.
Sec.   63.6(b)(5)............  Notification............  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)............  [Reserved]..............
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)............  Compliance dates for new  Yes..........................
                                and reconstructed area
                                sources that become
                                major.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)........  Compliance dates for      Yes..........................
                                existing sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)........  [Reserved]..............
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)............  Compliance dates for      Yes..........................
                                existing area sources
                                that become major.
Sec.   63.6(d)...............  [Reserved]..............
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i).........  General duty to minimize  Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                emissions.               No after September 8, 2020.
                                                          See Sec.   63.6105 for
                                                          general duty requirement..
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)........  Requirement to correct    Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                malfunctions ASAP.       No after September 8, 2020...
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii).......  Operation and             Yes..........................
                                Maintenance
                                Requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)............  [Reserved]..............
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)............  SSMP....................  Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                                         No after September 8, 2020...
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)............  Applicability of          Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                standards except during  No after September 8, 2020...
                                startup, shutdown, or
                                malfunction (SSM).
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)............  Methods for determining   Yes..........................
                                compliance.
Sec.   63.6(f)(3)............  Finding of compliance...  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3)........  Use of alternative        Yes..........................
                                standard.
Sec.   63.6(h)...............  Opacity and visible       No...........................  Subpart YYYY does not
                                emission standards.                                      contain opacity or
                                                                                visible emission
                                                                                standards.
Sec.   63.6(i)...............  Compliance extension      Yes..........................
                                procedures and criteria.
Sec.   63.6(j)...............  Presidential compliance   Yes..........................
                                exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)........  Performance test dates..  Yes..........................  Subpart YYYY contains
                                                                                performance test dates
                                                                                at Sec.   63.6110.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)............  Section 114 authority...  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.7(b)(1)............  Notification of           Yes..........................
                                performance test.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2)............  Notification of           Yes..........................
                                rescheduling.

Sec.   63.7(c)...............  Quality assurance/test    Yes..........................
                                plan.
Sec.   63.7(d)...............  Testing facilities......  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)............  Conditions for            Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                conducting performance   No after September 8, 2020...
                                tests.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)............  Conduct of performance    Yes..........................  Subpart YYYY specifies
                                tests and reduction of                                   test methods at Sec.
                                data.                                                    63.6120.
Sec.   63.7(e)(3)............  Test run duration.......  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.7(e)(4)............  Administrator may         Yes..........................
                                require other testing
                                under section 114 of
                                the CAA.
Sec.   63.7(f)...............  Alternative test method   Yes..........................
                                provisions.
Sec.   63.7(g)...............  Performance test data     Yes..........................
                                analysis,
                                recordkeeping, and
                                reporting.
Sec.   63.7(h)...............  Waiver of tests.........  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)............  Applicability of          Yes..........................  Subpart YYYY contains
                                monitoring requirements.                                 specific requirements
                                                                                for monitoring at Sec.
                                                                                63.6125.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2)............  Performance               Yes..........................
                                specifications.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)............  [Reserved]..............
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)............  Monitoring for control    No...........................
                                devices.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1)............  Monitoring..............  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3)........  Multiple effluents and    Yes..........................
                                multiple monitoring
                                systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)............  Monitoring system         Yes..........................
                                operation and
                                maintenance.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i).........  General duty to minimize  Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                emissions and CMS        No after September 8, 2020...
                                operation.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)........  Parts for repair of CMS   Yes..........................
                                readily available.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii).......  Requirement to develop    Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                SSM Plan for CMS.        No after September 8, 2020...
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)........  Monitoring system         Yes..........................
                                installation.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)............  Continuous monitoring     Yes..........................  Except that subpart YYYY
                                system (CMS)                                             does not require
                                requirements.                                            continuous opacity
                                                                                monitoring systems
                                                                                (COMS).
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)............  COMS minimum procedures.  No...........................
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)-(8)........  CMS requirements........  Yes..........................  Except that subpart YYYY
                                                                                does not require COMS.
Sec.   63.8(d)(1)-(2)........  CMS quality control.....  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)............  Written procedures for    Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                CMS.                     No after September 8, 2020...
Sec.   63.8(e)...............  CMS performance           Yes..........................  Except for Sec.
                                evaluation.                                              63.8(e)(5)(ii), which
                                                                                applies to COMS.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)........  Alternative monitoring    Yes..........................
                                method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)............  Alternative to relative   Yes..........................
                                accuracy test.
Sec.   63.8(g)...............  Data reduction..........  Yes..........................  Except that provisions
                                                                                for COMS are not
                                                                                applicable. Averaging
                                                                                periods for
                                                                                demonstrating
                                                                                compliance are
                                                                                specified at Sec.  Sec.
                                                                                63.6135 and 63.6140.
Sec.   63.9(a)...............  Applicability and State   Yes..........................
                                delegation of
                                notification
                                requirements.
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(5)........  Initial notifications...  Yes..........................  Except that Sec.
                                                                                63.9(b)(3) is reserved.
Sec.   63.9(c)...............  Request for compliance    Yes..........................
                                extension.
Sec.   63.9(d)...............  Notification of special   Yes..........................
                                compliance requirements
                                for new sources.
Sec.   63.9(e)...............  Notification of           Yes..........................
                                performance test.
Sec.   63.9(f)...............  Notification of visible   No...........................  Subpart YYYY does not
                                emissions/opacity test.                                  contain opacity or VE
                                                                                standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(1)............  Notification of           Yes..........................
                                performance evaluation.

Sec.   63.9(g)(2)............  Notification of use of    No...........................  Subpart YYYY does not
                                COMS data.                                               contain opacity or VE
                                                                                standards.
Sec.   63.9(g)(3)............  Notification that         Yes..........................
                                criterion for
                                alternative to relative
                                accuracy test audit
                                (RATA) is exceeded.
Sec.   63.9(h)...............  Notification of           Yes..........................  Except that
                                compliance status.                                       notifications for
                                                                                sources not conducting
                                                                                performance tests are
                                                                                due 30 days after
                                                                                completion of
                                                                                performance
                                                                                evaluations. Sec.
                                                                                63.9(h)(4) is reserved.
Sec.   63.9(i)...............  Adjustment of submittal   Yes..........................
                                deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j)...............  Change in previous        Yes..........................
                                information.
Sec.   63.10(a)..............  Administrative            Yes..........................
                                provisions for
                                recordkeeping and
                                reporting.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...........  Record retention........  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)........  Recordkeeping of          Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                occurrence and duration  No after September 8, 2020...
                                of startups and
                                shutdowns.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii).......  Recordkeeping of          Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                failures to meet a       No after September 8, 2020.
                                standard.                 See Sec.   63.6155 for
                                                          recordkeeping of (1) date,
                                                          time and duration; (2)
                                                          listing of affected source
                                                          or equipment, and an
                                                          estimate of the quantity of
                                                          each regulated pollutant
                                                          emitted over the standard;
                                                          and (3) actions to minimize
                                                          emissions and correct the
                                                          failure..
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)......  Maintenance records.....  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)...  Records related to        Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                actions during SSM.      No after September 8, 2020...
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi)..  CMS records.............  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii)......  Record when under waiver  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii).....  Records when using        Yes..........................
                                alternative to RATA.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)......  Records of supporting     Yes..........................
                                documentation.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)...........  Records of applicability  Yes..........................
                                determination.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(14)......  Additional records for    Yes..........................  Except that Sec.
                                sources using CMS.                                       63.10(c)(2)-(4) and (9)
                                                                                are reserved.
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)..........  Use of SSM Plan.........  Yes before September 8, 2020.
                                                         No after September 8, 2020...
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)...........  General reporting         Yes..........................
                                requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)...........  Report of performance     Yes..........................
                                test results.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)...........  Reporting opacity or VE   No...........................  Subpart YYYY does not
                                observations.                                            contain opacity or VE
                                                                                standards.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)...........  Progress reports........  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)...........  Startup, shutdown, and    No. After September 8, 2020,
                                malfunction reports.      see 63.6150(a) for
                                                          malfunction reporting
                                                          requirements.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1) and (2)(i)  Additional CMS reports..  Yes..........................
Sec.   63.10(e)(2)(ii).......  COMS-related report.....  No...........................  Subpart YYYY does not
                                                                                require COMS.
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)...........  Excess emissions and      Yes..........................  After September 8, 2020
                                parameter exceedances                                    submitted with the
                                reports.                                                 compliance report
                                                                                through CEDRI according
                                                                                to Sec.   63.6150(a).
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)...........  Reporting COMS data.....  No...........................  Subpart YYYY does not
                                                                                require COMS.
Sec.   63.10(f)..............  Waiver for recordkeeping  Yes..........................
                                and reporting.
Sec.   63.11.................  Flares..................  No...........................
Sec.   63.12.................  State authority and       Yes..........................
                                delegations.

Sec.   63.13.................  Addresses...............  Yes..........................  After September 8, 2020
                                                                                not applicable to
                                                                                reports required to be
                                                                                submitted through CEDRI
                                                                                by 63.6150(c), (e),
                                                                                (f), or (g).
Sec.   63.14.................  Incorporation by          Yes..........................
                                reference.
Sec.   63.15.................  Availability of           Yes..........................
                                information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-02714 Filed 3-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Reference:
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Parts 1100, 1140, and 1143
[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0189]
RIN 0910-AG38

Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

I would like to explain my passion about, and where I fit into, this industry. I am 55 years of age and started smoking at a very early age. I smoked for 41 years until a year ago this past April. For those 41 years, I can’t tell you how many times I tried to stop smoking, and how many methods and products I tried with no success. I finally reached the point of concluding I would go to the grave being a smoker. This new product, Electronic Cigarettes, I saw as a new plan and was very suspect of having any success. Well, it’s been over a year now of being off traditional tobacco products. My health has greatly improved and my doctor is shocked, as is my dentist. Both tell me keep it up. I have increased my lung capacity and am doing things now that just a year ago I would not or could not even consider doing, like kayaking the beautiful north Idaho rivers. I am totally convinced this product and industry have given me an extended life by providing me an alternative to traditional tobacco. Over the past year of using these products I have been able to reduce my nicotine from 24 milligrams (mg) per milliliter (ml) to down to 6 mg per ml. My wife, who was a smoker for these many years, has been able to get to 0mg nicotine. This product has great success with the advanced devices that are available through the many small, independent stores throughout our wonderful state.

As for the proposal, I am very concerned at its aim and the direction it is proposing to take with this wonderful, life-extending product. This industry has spread very fast, I agree, throughout the USA; and rightly so.  Many individuals are as passionate as I am about this product. These are people that have been trapped by big tobacco products for years, products that have taken many lives and provide little to help people to get off tobacco. Electronic Cigarette small business owners encourage the opposite in the way of harm reduction through the use of these products.

The proposed regulation and product approval processes that it outlines are totally unrealistic for any of the small businesses that have created this industry and caused it to grow to such levels today. To meet these over-reaching demands of product approval fees would be the death of the small business, and a total turning over of the industry to those that have caused such concern in this country and the world in the first place. The pre-existing products of 2007 of this proposal are not even what the market today is thriving with as productive product for use. The FDA claims this is a way for existing companies to bring their products to market under this proposal. It’s poorly researched on the part of the FDA if they truly believe this. Many of the pre-existing products of 2007 do not even exist in the industry today.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.