[Federal Register: June 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 112)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27973-27985]
[DOCID:fr12jn09-24]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0220; FRL-8917-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of the
Columbus Area to Attainment for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing several related actions affecting the
Columbus, Ohio area. EPA is proposing to make a determination under the
Clean Air Act (CAA) that the Columbus 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area has attained the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). The Columbus area includes Delaware, Fairfield,
Franklin, Knox, Licking, and Madison Counties. This determination is
based on quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the
2006-2008 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
has been attained in the area. EPA is proposing to approve, as a
revision to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP), the State's plan
for maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2020 in the area. EPA is
proposing to approve a request from the State of Ohio to redesignate
the Columbus area to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) submitted this request on
March 17, 2009.
    EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base year emissions inventory
for the Columbus area as meeting the requirements of the CAA. If EPA's
determination of attainment is finalized, under EPA's ozone
implementation rulemaking the requirements to submit certain planning
SIPs related to attainment (the Reasonably Available Control Measure
(RACM) requirement, the reasonable further progress (RFP) and
attainment demonstration requirements, and the requirement for
contingency measures) are not applicable to the area as long as it
continues to attain the NAAQS and would cease to apply upon
redesignation. Finally, EPA finds adequate and is proposing to approve
the State's 2012 and 2020 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for
the Columbus area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2009-0220, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, 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-
2009-0220. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://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 http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 http://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 this document, ``What Should I Consider as
I Prepare My Comments for EPA?''
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Kathleen D'Agostino,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<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:

Table of Contents

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Action Is EPA Proposing to Take?
III. What Is the Background for These Actions?
    A. What Is the General Background Information?
    B. What Are the Impacts of the December 22, 2006, and June 8,
2007, United States Court of Appeals Decisions Regarding EPA's Phase
1 Implementation Rule?
IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?
V. What Is the Effect of These Actions?
VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request?
    A. Attainment Determination and Redesignation
    B. Adequacy of Ohio's MVEBs
    C. 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory
VIII. What Action Is EPA Taking?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    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--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 Action Is EPA Proposing to Take?

    EPA is proposing to take several related actions. EPA is proposing
to make a determination that the Columbus nonattainment area has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that this area has met the
requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
EPA is thus proposing to approve Ohio's request to change the legal
designation of the Columbus area from nonattainment to attainment for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve Ohio's
maintenance plan SIP revision for Columbus (such approval being one of
the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The
maintenance plan is designed to keep the Columbus area in attainment of
the ozone NAAQS through 2020. EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base
year emissions inventory for the Columbus area as meeting the
requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. If EPA's determination of
attainment is finalized, under the provisions of 40 CFR section 51.918,
the requirement to submit certain planning SIPs related to attainment
(the RACM requirement of section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, the RFP and
attainment demonstration requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and (6) of
the CAA, and the requirement for contingency measures of section
172(c)(9) of the CAA) are not applicable to the area as long as it
continues to attain the NAAQS and would cease to be applicable upon
redesignation. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the newly-
established 2012 and 2020 MVEBs for the Columbus area. The adequacy
comment period for the MVEBs began on February 18, 2009, with EPA's
posting of the availability of the submittal on EPA's Adequacy Web site
(at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm). The
adequacy comment period for these MVEBs ended on March 20, 2009. EPA
did not receive any requests for this submittal, or adverse comments on
this submittal during the adequacy comment period. In a letter dated
March 30, 2009, EPA informed Ohio EPA that we had found the 2012 and
2020 MVEBs to be adequate for use in transportation conformity
analyses. Please see section VII. B. of this rulemaking, ``Adequacy of
Ohio's MVEBs,'' for further explanation on this process. Therefore, we
find adequate, and are proposing to approve, the State's 2012 and 2020
MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes.

III. What Is the Background for These Actions?

A. What Is the General Background Information?

    Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react
in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. NOX
and VOCs are referred to as precursors of ozone.
    The CAA establishes a process for air quality management through
the NAAQS. Before promulgation of the 8-hour standard, the ozone NAAQS
was based on a 1-hour standard. On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56693 and
56813), the Columbus area was designated as a moderate nonattainment
area under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The area was subsequently
redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour standard on February 1, 1996
(61 FR 3591). At the time EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, on June
15, 2005, the Columbus area was designated as attainment under the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS.
    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone
standard of 0.08 parts per million parts (ppm). On April 30, 2004 (69
FR 23857), EPA published a final rule designating and classifying areas
under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These designations and classifications
became effective June 15, 2004. EPA designated as nonattainment any
area that was violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most
recent years of air quality data, 2001-2003.
    The CAA contains two sets of provisions, subpart 1 and subpart 2,
that address planning and control requirements for nonattainment areas.
(Both are found in Title I, part D, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7509a and 7511-
7511f, respectively.) Subpart 1 contains general requirements for
nonattainment areas for any pollutant, including ozone, governed by a
NAAQS. Subpart 2 provides more specific requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas.
    Under EPA's implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard,
(69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004)), an area was classified under subpart 2
based on its 8-hour ozone design value (i.e., the three-year average
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration), if it had a 1-hour design value at the time of
designation at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in
Table 1 of subpart 2) (69 FR 23954). All other areas were covered under
subpart 1, based upon their 8-hour design values (69 FR 23958). The
Columbus area was designated as a subpart 1, 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area by EPA on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857, 23927) based on air quality
monitoring data from 2001-2003 (69 FR 23860).
    40 CFR 50.10 and 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I provide that the 8-hour
ozone standard is attained when the three-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less
than or equal to 0.08 ppm, when rounded. The data completeness
requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient
monitoring data is greater than 90%, and no single year has less than
75% data completeness. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, 2.3(d).
    On March 17, 2009, Ohio EPA requested that EPA redesignate the
Columbus area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The
redesignation request included three years of complete, quality-assured
data for the period of 2006 through 2008, indicating the 8-hour NAAQS
for ozone, as promulgated in 1997, had been attained for the Columbus
area. Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be redesignated to
attainment if sufficient complete, quality-assured data are available
for the Administrator to determine that the area has attained the
standard, and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements
in section 107(d)(3)(E).
    On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour
ozone standard of 0.075. EPA has not yet promulgated area designations
for this standard. While both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone standards
are currently in place, the actions addressed in this proposed
rulemaking relate only to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

B. What Are the Impacts of the December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007,
United States Court of Appeals Decisions Regarding EPA's Phase 1
Implementation Rule?

1. Summary of Court Decision
    On December 22, 2006, in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.
v. EPA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard
(69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006). On June 8,
2007, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the DC Circuit
Court clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to
those parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. Id.,
Docket No. 04 1201. Therefore, several provisions of the Phase 1 Rule
remain effective: Provisions related to classifications for areas
currently classified under subpart 2 of Title I, part D, of the Act as
8-hour nonattainment areas; the 8-hour attainment dates; and the timing
for emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The June 8, 2007, decision also left intact the Court's
rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in
certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By
limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-
hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule
that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8, 2007, decision
reaffirmed the December 22, 2006, decision that EPA had improperly
failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas
under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1)
Nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an
area's 1-hour nonattainment classification; (2) section 185 penalty
fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas; (3) measures to
be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act,
on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that
NAAQS; and (4) certain transportation conformity requirements for
certain types of Federal actions. The June 8, 2007, decision clarified
that the Court's reference to conformity requirements was limited to
requiring the continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets
until 8-hour budgets were available for 8-hour conformity
determinations.
    This section sets forth EPA's views on the potential effect of the
Court's rulings on this proposed redesignation action. For the reasons
set forth below, EPA does not believe that the Court's rulings alter
any requirements relevant to this redesignation action so as to
preclude redesignation or prevent EPA from proposing or ultimately
finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the Court's December
22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, decisions impose no impediment to moving
forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because even in
light of the Court's decisions, redesignation is appropriate under the
relevant redesignation provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies
regarding redesignation requests.
2. Requirements Under the 8-Hour Standard
    With respect to the 8-hour standard, the Court's ruling rejected
EPA's reasons for classifying areas under subpart 1 for the 8-hour
standard, and remanded that matter to the Agency. In its January 16,
2009 proposed rulemaking in response to the South Coast decision, EPA
has proposed to classify Columbus under subpart 2 as a moderate area.
74 FR 2936, 2944. If EPA finalizes this rulemaking, the requirements
under subpart 2 will become applicable when they are due, a deadline
that EPA has proposed to be one year after the effective date of a
final rulemaking classifying areas as moderate or marginal. 74 FR 2940-
2941. Although a future final decision by EPA to classify this area
under subpart 2 would trigger additional future requirements for the
area, EPA believes that this does not mean that redesignation cannot
now go forward. This belief is based upon: (1) EPA's longstanding
policy of evaluating requirements in accordance with the requirements
due at the time the request is submitted; and (2) consideration of the
inequity of applying retroactively any requirements that might in the
future be applied.
    First, at the time the redesignation request was submitted, the
Columbus area was not classified under subpart 2, nor were there any
subpart 2 requirements yet due for this area. Under EPA's longstanding
interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, to qualify for
redesignation, states requesting redesignation to attainment must meet
only the relevant SIP requirements that came due prior to the submittal
of a complete redesignation request. See September 4, 1992, Calcagni
memorandum (``Procedures for Processing Requests To Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division). See also Michael Shapiro Memorandum, September
17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (Redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004), which upheld this interpretation. See, e.g. also 68 FR 25418,
25424, 25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of St. Louis).
    Moreover, it would be inequitable to retroactively apply any new
SIP requirements that were not applicable at the time the request was
submitted. The DC Circuit has recognized the inequity in such
retroactive rulemaking. In Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F. 3d 63 (DC
Cir. 2002), the DC Circuit upheld a District Court's ruling refusing to
make retroactive an EPA determination of nonattainment that was past
the statutory due date. Such a determination would have resulted in the
imposition of additional requirements on the area. The Court stated:
``Although EPA failed to make the nonattainment determination within
the statutory time frame, Sierra Club's proposed solution only makes
the situation worse. Retroactive relief would likely impose large costs
on the States, which would face fines and suits for not implementing
air pollution prevention plans in 1997, even though they were not on
notice at the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly here it would be unfair to
penalize the area by applying to it for purposes of redesignation
additional SIP requirements under subpart 2 that were not in effect or
yet due at the time it submitted its redesignation request.
3. Requirements Under the 1-Hour Standard
    With respect to the 1-hour standard requirements, the Columbus area
was an attainment area subject to a CAA section 175A maintenance plan
under the 1-hour standard. The DC Circuit's decisions do not impact
redesignation requests for these types of areas, except to the extent
that the Court in its June 8, 2007, decision clarified that for those
areas with 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets in their maintenance
plans, anti-backsliding requires that those 1-hour budgets must be used
for 8-hour conformity determinations until replaced by 8-hour budgets.
To meet this requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must
comply with the applicable requirements of EPA's conformity regulations
at 40 CFR part 93.
    With respect to the three other anti-backsliding provisions for the
1-hour standard that the Court found were not properly retained, the
Columbus area is an attainment area subject to a maintenance plan for
the 1-hour standard, and the NSR, contingency

measure (pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)), and fee provision
requirements no longer apply to an area that has been redesignated to
attainment of the 1-hour standard.
    Thus, the decision in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.
would not preclude EPA from finalizing the redesignation of this area.

IV. What Are the Criteria for Redesignation?

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) allows for
redesignation provided that: (1) The Administrator determines that the
area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully
approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section
110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable
Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section
175A; and (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
    EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
    ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,'' Memorandum
from William G. Laxton, Director, Technical Support Division, June 18,
1990;
    ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
    ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
    ``Procedures for Processing Requests To Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992;
    ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to
Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
    ``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms,
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
    ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or
After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;
    ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for Ozone
and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting
Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors,
Regions 1-10, November 30, 1993.
    ``Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994; and
    ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.

V. What Is the Effect of These Actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request would change the official
designation of the area for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS found at 40 CFR part
81. It would also incorporate into the Ohio SIP a plan for maintaining
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2020. The maintenance plan includes
contingency measures to remedy future violations of the 8-hour NAAQS.
It also establishes MVEBs of 54.86 and 36.60 tons per day (tpd) VOC and
91.64 and 46.61 tpd NOX for the years 2012 and 2020,
respectively.

VI. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Request?

A. Attainment Determination and Redesignation

    EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Columbus area has
attained the 8-hour ozone standard and that the area has met all other
applicable section 107(d)(3)(E) redesignation criteria. The basis for
EPA's determination is as follows:
1. The Area Has Attained the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Section
107(d)(3)(E)(i))
    EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Columbus area has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered
to be attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as
determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.10 and part 50, Appendix I,
based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured
air quality monitoring data. To attain this standard, the three-year
average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year
must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in
40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the standard is attained if the design
value is 0.084 ppm or below. The data must be collected and quality-
assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in the
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). The monitors generally
should have remained at the same location for the duration of the
monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.
    Ohio EPA submitted ozone monitoring data for the 2006 to 2008 ozone
seasons. Ohio EPA quality-assured the ambient monitoring data in
accordance with 40 CFR 58.10, and recorded it in the AIRS database,
thus making the data publicly available. The data meet the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR 50, Appendix I, which requires a minimum
completeness of 75 percent annually and 90 percent over each three year
period. Monitoring data is presented in Table 1 below.

   Table 1--Annual 4th High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentration and Three Year Averages of 4th High Daily
                                       Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2006 4th high   2007 4th high   2008 4th high     2006-2008
            County                   Monitor           (ppm)           (ppm)           (ppm)       average (ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware......................  Delaware, 39-041-          0.075           0.080           0.075           0.076
                                 0002.
Franklin......................  Koebel School,             0.076           0.078           0.069           0.074
                                 39-049-0028.
                                New Albany, 39-            0.082           0.087           0.083           0.084
                                 049-0029.
                                Franklin Park,             0.079           0.079           0.071           0.076
                                 39-049-0037.
                                Maple Canyon, 39-          0.077           0.079           0.066           0.074
                                 049-0081.
Knox..........................  Centerburg, 39-            0.075           0.080           0.074           0.076
                                 083-0002.
Licking.......................  Heath, 39-089-             0.072           0.078           0.074           0.074
                                 0005.
Madison.......................  London, 39-097-            0.076           0.083           0.071           0.076
                                 0007.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as discussed below with respect to the maintenance
plan, Ohio EPA has committed to continue to operate an EPA-approved
monitoring network as necessary to demonstrate ongoing compliance with
the NAAQS. Ohio EPA commits to continue monitoring ozone at the sites
indicated in Table 1. Ohio EPA also commits to consult with EPA prior
to making changes to the existing monitoring network, should changes
become necessary in the future. Ohio EPA remains obligated to continue
to quality assure monitoring data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and
enter all data into the Air Quality System in accordance with Federal
guidelines. In summary, EPA believes that the data submitted by Ohio
provide an adequate demonstration that the Columbus area has attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and currently available data show that the area
continues to attain the standard. Should the area violate the standard
before the redesignation is finalized, EPA will not go forward with the
redesignation.
2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D; and the Area Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k)
(Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 107(d)(3)(E)(ii))
    We have determined that Ohio has met all currently applicable SIP
requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Columbus area under
section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We are also
proposing to determine that the Ohio SIP meets all SIP requirements
currently applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D of
Title I of the CAA (requirements specific to subpart 1 nonattainment
areas), in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, with
the exception of the base year emissions inventory, we have determined
that the Ohio SIP is fully approved with respect to all applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation, in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As discussed below, in this action EPA is proposing
to approve Ohio's 2002 base year emissions inventory.
    In proposing these determinations, we have ascertained what SIP
requirements are applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation,
and have determined that the portions of the SIP meeting these
requirements are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA. As
discussed more fully below, SIPs must be fully approved only with
respect to currently applicable requirements of the CAA.
    The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum (see ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992) describes EPA's interpretation of section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Under this interpretation, a state and the
area it wishes to redesignate must meet the relevant CAA requirements
that are due prior to the state's submittal of a complete redesignation
request for the area. See also the September 17, 1993, Michael Shapiro
memorandum and 60 FR 12459, 12465-66 (March 7, 1995) (redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor, Michigan to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the
state's submittal of a complete request remain applicable until a
redesignation to attainment is approved, but are not required as a
prerequisite to redesignation. See section 175A(c) of the CAA. Sierra
Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 25427
(May 12, 2003) (redesignation of the St. Louis/East St. Louis area to
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
    Since EPA is proposing here to determine that the area has attained
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, under 40 CFR 51.918, if that
determination is finalized, the requirements to submit certain planning
SIPs related to attainment, including attainment demonstration
requirements (the RACM requirement of section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, the
RFP and attainment demonstration requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and
(6) and 182(b)(1) of the CAA, and the requirement for contingency
measures of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA) would not be applicable to
the area as long as it continues to attain the NAAQS and would cease to
apply upon redesignation. In addition, in the context of
redesignations, EPA has interpreted requirements related to attainment
as not applicable for purposes of redesignation. For example, in the
General Preamble EPA stated that:

[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring RFP
and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements no longer
apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible for
redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans * * *
provides specific requirements for contingency measures that
effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for
these areas. ``General Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' (General Preamble) 57 FR
13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992).

See also Calcagni memorandum at 6 (``The requirements for reasonable
further progress and other measures needed for attainment will not
apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not
attaining the standard.'').
a. The Columbus Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements for Purposes
of Redesignation Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
i. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
    Section 110(a) of Title I of the CAA contains the general
requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the
implementation plan submitted by a

state must have been adopted by the state after reasonable public
notice and hearing, and that, among other things, it includes
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or
techniques necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA; provides for
establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems
and procedures necessary to monitor ambient air quality; provides for
implementation of a source permit program to regulate the modification
and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by
the plan; includes provisions for the implementation of part C,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part D, NSR permit
programs; includes criteria for stationary source emission control
measures, monitoring, and reporting; includes provisions for air
quality modeling; and provides for public and local agency
participation in planning and emission control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain measures
to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address transport of
air pollutants (NOX SIP Call \1\ and Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005)). However, the section
110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classification. EPA believes that
the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's
designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless
of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, we
believe that these requirements should not be construed to be
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a
NOX SIP call requiring the District of Columbia and 22
states to reduce emissions of NOX in order to reduce the
transport of ozone and ozone precursors. In compliance with EPA's
NOX SIP call, Ohio EPA has developed rules governing the
control of NOX emissions from Electric Generating Units
(EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, and major cement kilns.
EPA approved Ohio's rules as fulfilling Phase I of the
NOX SIP Call on August 5, 2003 (68 FR 46089) and June 27,
2005 (70 FR 36845). EPA approved Ohio's rules as meeting Phase II of
the NOX SIP call on February 4, 2008 (73 FR 6427).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, we believe that the other section 110 elements described
above that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and
not linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to
these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We
conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements which are
linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the
relevant measures which we may consider in evaluating a redesignation
request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on
applicability of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for
redesignation purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings
(61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7,
1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio
ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19,
2001).
    We have reviewed Ohio's SIP and have concluded that it meets the
general SIP requirements under section 110 of the CAA to the extent
they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA has previously
approved provisions of the Ohio SIP addressing section 110 elements
under the 1-hour ozone standard (40 CFR 52.1870). Further, in
submittals dated December 5, 2007, and September 19, 2008, Ohio
confirmed that the State continues to meet the section 110 requirements
for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA has not yet taken rulemaking action
on these submittals; however, such approval is not necessary for
redesignation.
ii. Part D Requirements
    EPA has determined that, if EPA finalizes the approval of the base
year emissions inventory discussed in section VII.C. of this
rulemaking, the Ohio SIP will meet the applicable SIP requirements for
the Columbus area applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D
of the CAA. Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the CAA,
sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all
nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part D, which includes section 182 of
the CAA, establishes additional specific requirements depending on the
area's nonattainment classification.
    Since the Columbus area was not classified under subpart 2 of part
D at the time its redesignation request was submitted, the subpart 2
requirements do not apply for purposes of redesignation. The applicable
subpart 1 requirements are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9) and in
section 176.
Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements
    For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the
applicable section 172 SIP requirements for the Columbus area are
contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of the
requirements contained in section 172 can be found in the General
Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).
    Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all nonattainment areas to
provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as
practicable and shall provide for attainment of the national primary
ambient air quality standards. The EPA interprets this requirement to
impose a duty on all nonattainment areas to consider all available
control measures and to adopt and implement such measures as are
reasonably available for implementation in the area as components of
the area's attainment demonstration. On November 25, 2008 and February
2, 2009, Ohio EPA submitted an attainment demonstration and identified
the control measures necessary to attain the NAAQS in the Columbus
area. However, because attainment has been reached, no additional
measures are needed to provide for attainment, and section 172(c)(1)
requirements are no longer considered to be applicable as long as the
area continues to attain the standard.
    The RFP requirement under section 172(c)(2) is defined as progress
that must be made toward attainment. This requirement is not relevant
because the Columbus area has demonstrated monitored attainment of the
ozone NAAQS. (General Preamble, 57 FR 13564). In addition, because the
Columbus area has attained the ozone NAAQS and is no longer subject to
an RFP requirement, the requirement to submit the section 172(c)(9)
contingency measures are not applicable
    Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. As
part of Ohio's redesignation request for the Columbus area, the state
submitted a 2002 base year emissions inventory. As discussed below, EPA
is proposing to approve the 2002 base year inventory that Ohio
submitted with the redesignation

request as meeting the section 182(a)(1) emissions inventory
requirement.
    Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources to be
allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for
the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary
sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA has determined that,
since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being
redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be
approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale
for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled,
``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.'' Ohio has demonstrated that the Columbus
area will be able to maintain the standard without part D NSR in
effect; therefore, EPA concludes that the State need not have a fully
approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation
request. The State's PSD program will become effective in the Columbus
area upon redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit,
Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,
Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66
FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-
31837, June 21, 1996).
    Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures
necessary to provide for attainment of the standard. Because attainment
has been reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for
attainment.
    Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we believe the Ohio
SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) for purposes of
redesignation.
Subpart 1 Section 176 Conformity Requirements
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federally-supported or funded activities,
including highway projects, conform to the air quality planning goals
in the applicable SIPs. The requirement to determine conformity applies
to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or
approved under Title 23 of the U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act
(transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally-supported
or funded projects (general conformity). State conformity revisions
must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to
consultation, enforcement, and enforceability, which EPA promulgated
pursuant to CAA requirements.
    EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) for two reasons. First, the
requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity
provisions of the CAA continues to apply to areas after redesignation
to attainment since such areas would be subject to a section 175A
maintenance plan. Second, EPA's Federal conformity rules require the
performance of conformity analyses in the absence of Federally-approved
state rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to the conformity
requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment
and, because they must implement conformity under Federal rules if
state rules are not yet approved, EPA believes it is reasonable to view
these requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001),
upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 62749-62750 (Dec.
7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida).
    EPA approved Ohio's general and transportation conformity SIPs on
March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9646), and May 30, 2000 (65 FR 34395),
respectively. Ohio has submitted onroad motor vehicle budgets for the
Columbus area of 54.86 and 36.60 tpd VOC and 91.64 and 46.61 tpd
NOX for the years 2012 and 2020, respectively. The area must
use the MVEBs from the maintenance plan in any conformity determination
that is effective on or after the effective date of the maintenance
plan approval.
b. The Columbus Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section
110(k) of the CAA
    If EPA issues a final approval of the base year emissions
inventory, EPA will have fully approved the Ohio SIP for the Columbus
area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable
for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in
approving a redesignation request (See page 3 of the September 4, 1992,
John Calcagni memorandum; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v.
Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d
426 (6th Cir. 2001)) plus any additional measures it may approve in
conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25413, 25426 (May
12, 2003). Since the passage of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has adopted and
submitted, and EPA has fully approved, provisions addressing the
various required SIP elements applicable to the Columbus area under the
1-hour ozone standard. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve
Ohio's 2002 base year emissions inventory for the Columbus area as
meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. No Columbus
area SIP provisions are currently disapproved, conditionally approved,
or partially approved.
3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable
Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and
Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii))
    EPA finds that Ohio has demonstrated that the observed air quality
improvement in the Columbus area is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP,
Federal measures, and other State-adopted measures.
    In making this demonstration, the State has calculated the change
in emissions between 2002 and 2006. Ohio used the 2002 nonattainment
area base year emissions inventory required under section 172(c)(3) of
the CAA as the nonattainment inventory for redesignation purposes. The
State developed an attainment inventory for 2006, one of the years the
Columbus area monitored attainment. The reduction in emissions and the
corresponding improvement in air quality over this time period can be
attributed to a number of regulatory control measures that Columbus and
upwind areas have implemented in recent years.
a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls Implemented
    The following is a discussion of permanent and enforceable measures
that have been implemented in the areas:
    i. Stationary Source NOX Rules. Ohio EPA developed rules
governing the control of NOX emissions from Electric
Generating Units (EGUs), major non-EGU industrial boilers, and major
cement kilns. EPA approved Ohio's rules as fulfilling Phase I of the
NOX SIP Call on August 5, 2003 (68 FR 46089), and June 27,
2005 (70 FR 36845), and as fulfilling Phase II of the SIP call on

February 4, 2008 (73 FR 6427). Beginning in 2004, this rule accounts
for approximately a 31 percent reduction in statewide NOX
emissions.
    ii. Federal Emission Control Measures. Reductions in VOC and
NOX emissions have occurred statewide and in upwind areas as
a result of Federal emission control measures, with additional emission
reductions expected to occur in the future. Federal emission control
measures include: The National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program,
Tier 2 emission standards for vehicles, gasoline sulfur limits, low
sulfur diesel fuel standards, and heavy-duty diesel engine standards.
In addition, on June 29, 2004 (69 FR 38958), EPA issued the Clean Air
Non-road Diesel Rule, which phases in Tier 4 emissions standards over
the 2008-2015 time period.
    iii. Control Measures in Upwind Areas. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR
57356), EPA issued a NOX SIP call requiring the District of
Columbia and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX. The
reduction in NOX emissions has resulted in lower
concentrations of transported ozone entering the Columbus area.
Emission reductions resulting from regulations developed in response to
the NOX SIP call are permanent and enforceable.
b. Emission Reductions
    Ohio is using the 2002 base year inventory developed pursuant to
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA as the nonattainment inventory. In
developing the 2002 base year inventory, Ohio EPA provided point and
area source inventories to the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium
(LADCO). The main purpose of LADCO is to provide technical assessments
for and assistance to its member states on problems of air quality.
LADCO's primary geographic focus is the area encompassed by its member
states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin) and any areas
which affect air quality in its member states. LADCO processed these
inventories through the Emission Modeling System (EMS) to generate
summer weekday emissions for VOC and NOX. The processed
modeling inventories were used for the base year inventory. The point
source data provided to LADCO is a combination of EPA's EGU inventory
and source specific data reported to Ohio EPA for non-EGU sources. Area
source emissions were estimated by Ohio EPA using published Emission
Inventory Improvement Program methodologies or methodologies shared by
other states. Ohio EPA documented the methodology used for each area
source category. Nonroad mobile emissions were generated for LADCO
using EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM), with the following
exceptions: Recreational motorboat populations and spatial surrogates
were updated; emissions estimates were developed for commercial marine
vessels, aircraft, and railroads (MAR), three nonroad categories not
included in NMIM; and onroad mobile emissions were calculated using the
MOBILE6.2 emissions model.
    Ohio is using 2006 for the attainment year inventory. Ohio EPA
developed a 2005 base year inventory, in conjunction with LADCO, using
the methodology described above for base year 2002. With the exception
of the onroad mobile sector, Ohio EPA used growth factors provided by
LADCO to project this inventory to 2006. Onroad mobile emissions were
calculated for 2006 using the MOBILE6.2 emissions model.
    Using the inventories described above, Ohio's submittal documents
changes in VOC and NOX emissions from 2002 to 2006 for the
Columbus area. Emissions data are shown in Tables 3 through 5 below.

                                     Table 3--Columbus Area VOC and NOX Emissions for Nonattainment Year 2002 (TPD)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Point             Area             Nonroad           Onroad             Total
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware......................................................     0.30     0.02     5.40     0.63     4.28     5.54     9.15    16.07    19.13    22.26
Fairfield.....................................................     0.20     5.37     4.97     0.39     1.88     2.42     7.13    11.21    14.18    19.39
Franklin......................................................     3.03     2.43    43.07     4.47    17.51    25.01    64.32   106.77   127.93   138.68
Knox..........................................................     0.00     0.00     3.96     0.35     1.08     1.93     2.35     3.26     7.39     5.54
Licking.......................................................     0.49     1.72     6.23     0.77     2.51     4.54    10.20    17.44    19.43    24.47
Madison.......................................................     0.00     0.00     4.65     0.23     1.09     2.46     4.69     9.20    10.43    11.89
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................     4.02     9.54    68.28     6.84    28.35    41.90    97.84   163.95   198.49   222.23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                         Table 4--Columbus VOC and NOX Emissions for Attainment Year 2006 (TPD)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Point             Area             Nonroad           Onroad             Total
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware......................................................     0.44     0.05     5.94     1.24     5.35     8.01     6.70    12.11    18.43    21.41
Fairfield.....................................................     0.26     4.38     6.13     0.90     2.17     4.07     4.70     7.73    13.26    17.08
Franklin......................................................     3.00     2.13    46.53    10.69    21.62    27.03    46.55    85.07   117.70   124.92
Knox..........................................................     0.00     0.04     3.29     0.60     1.50     1.99     2.09     2.98     6.88     5.61
Licking.......................................................     0.52     2.69     8.37     1.59     3.46     3.77     6.97    12.91    19.32    20.96
Madison.......................................................     0.13     0.01     2.98     0.41     1.42     2.83     3.26     7.00     7.79    10.25
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................     4.35     9.30    73.24    15.43    35.52    47.70    70.27   127.80   183.38   200.23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                        Table 5--Comparison of Columbus 2002 and 2006 VOC and NOX Emissions (TPD)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                VOC                                             NOX
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Net change                                      Net change
                                                               2002            2006         (2002-2006)        2002            2006         (2002-2006)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................            4.02            4.35            0.33            9.54            9.30           -0.24
Area....................................................           68.28           73.24            4.96            6.84           15.43            8.59
Nonroad.................................................           28.38           35.52            7.17           41.90           47.70            5.80
Onroad..................................................           97.84           70.27          -27.57          163.95          127.80          -36.15
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................          198.49          183.38          -15.11          222.23          200.23          -22.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 5 shows that the Columbus area reduced VOC emissions by 15.11
tpd and NOX emissions by 22.00 tpd between 2002 and 2006.
Based on the information summarized above, Ohio has adequately
demonstrated that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent
and enforceable emissions reductions.
4. The Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section
175a of the CAA (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv))
    In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Columbus
nonattainment area to attainment status, Ohio submitted a SIP revision
to provide for the maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the area
through 2020.
a. What Is Required in a Maintenance Plan?
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued
attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the
Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after
the redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan
which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for
ten years following the initial ten-year maintenance period. To address
the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must
contain contingency measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA
deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future 8-hour ozone
violations.
    The September 4, 1992, John Calcagni memorandum provides additional
guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum clarifies
that an ozone maintenance plan should address the following items: The
attainment VOC and NOX emissions inventories, a maintenance
demonstration showing maintenance for the ten years of the maintenance
period, a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network,
factors and procedures to be used for verification of continued
attainment of the NAAQS, and a contingency plan to prevent or correct
future violations of the NAAQS.
b. Attainment Inventory
    The Ohio EPA developed an emissions inventory for 2006, one of the
years Ohio used to demonstrate monitored attainment of the 8-hour
NAAQS, as described above. The attainment level of emissions is
summarized in Table 4, above.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
    Along with the redesignation request, Ohio submitted a revision to
the 8-hour ozone SIP to include a maintenance plan for the Columbus
area, in compliance with section 175A of the CAA. This demonstration
shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard through 2020 by assuring
that current and future emissions of VOC and NOX for the
Columbus area remain at or below attainment year emission levels. A
maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. See Wall v.
EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537
(7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099-53100 (October 19, 2001),
68 FR 25413, 25430-25432 (May 12, 2003).
    Ohio is using emissions inventories for the years 2012 and 2020 to
demonstrate maintenance. Onroad emissions for 2012 and 2020 emissions
were calculated using the MOBILE6.2 emissions model. Emissions
estimates for the remaining source categories were based on future year
inventories developed by LADCO for the years 2012 and 2018. With the
exception of MAR, nonroad emissions for these years were estimated
using NMIM. MAR emissions were derived by applying growth and control
factors to the 2005 inventory. EGU emissions were based on IPM3.0
modeling and assume no credit for implementation of CAIR in the area.
Area source and non-EGU point source emissions were derived by applying
growth and control factors to the 2005 inventory. To derive 2020
emissions estimates, Ohio EPA applied LADCO growth factors to the 2018
LADCO inventory.
    Ohio is in the process of revising its state rules for its Best
Available Technology (BAT) minor source permitting program. As
discussed above, a state can demonstrate maintenance of the standard by
showing that future emissions of VOC and NOX for the area
remain at or below attainment year emission levels. Ohio EPA's
emissions projections for this maintenance plan assume no emissions
benefits from implementation of the BAT program. The LADCO growth
factors used to project future emissions were developed using
techniques consistent among the LADCO states and assume implementation
of no minor source permitting programs for any state, including Ohio.
The emission projections show that Ohio EPA does not expect emissions
in the Columbus area to exceed the level of the 2006 attainment year
inventory during the maintenance period. Ohio's maintenance plan
demonstrates that the area can maintain the standard through 2020
applying standard growth factors and without the BAT program. EPA
believes that Ohio has provided adequate demonstration of maintenance,
and that any changes to the BAT program should not impact the Columbus
area's ability to attain or maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Therefore, the issues associated with the BAT program are not being
considered for purposes of this redesignation. Nothing in this rule or
redesignation is intended to affect the SIP approvability or non-
approvability of any revised Ohio BAT rules, and EPA will evaluate the
approvability of such rules when Ohio submits them. Emissions data are
shown in Table 6 below.

                                       Table 6--Columbus Area VOC and NOX Emissions for 2006, 2012 and 2020 (TPD)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          VOC                                                 NOX
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Net        Net                                      Net        Net
                                                    2006      2012      2020      change     change     2006      2012      2020      change     change
                                                                                2006-2012  2006-2020                                2006-2012  2006-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................      4.35      4.88      5.72       0.53       1.37      9.30      9.18      9.75      -0.12       0.45
Area............................................     73.24     59.22     52.66     -14.02     -20.58     15.43     15.61     15.70       0.18       0.27
Nonroad.........................................     35.52     26.56     26.44      -8.96      -9.08     47.70     35.13     18.74     -12.57     -28.96
Onroad..........................................     70.27     47.70     31.83     -22.57     -38.44    127.80     79.69     40.53     -48.11     -87.27
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................    183.38    138.36    116.65     -45.02     -66.73    200.23    139.61     84.72     -60.62    -115.51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emission projections show that Ohio EPA does not expect
emissions in the Columbus area to exceed the level of the 2006
attainment year inventory during the maintenance period, even without
implementation of CAIR. In the Columbus area, Ohio EPA projects that
VOC and NOX emissions will decrease by 66.73 tpd and 115.51
tpd, respectively, between 2006 and 2020.
    In addition, LADCO performed a regional modeling analysis to
address the effect of the recent court decision vacating CAIR. This
analysis is documented in LADCO's ``Regional Air Quality Analyses for
Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze: Final Technical Support Document
(Supplement), September 12, 2008.'' LADCO produced a base year
inventory for 2005 and future year inventories for 2009, 2012, and
2018. To estimate future EGU NOX emissions without
implementation of CAIR, LADCO projected 2007 EGU NOX
emissions for all states in the modeling domain based on Energy
Information Administration growth rates by state (North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) region) and fuel type for the
years 2009, 2012 and 2018. The assumed 2007-2018 growth rates were 8.8%
for Illinois, Iowa, Missouri and Wisconsin; 13.5% for Indiana,
Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio; and 15.1% for Minnesota. Emissions were
adjusted by applying legally enforceable controls, e.g., consent decree
or rule. EGU NOX emissions projections for the states of
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin are shown below in
Table 7. The emission projections used for the modeling analysis do not
account for certain relevant factors such as allowance trading and
potential changes in operation of existing control devices. The
NOX projections indicate that, due to the NOX SIP
call, certain State rules, consent decrees resulting from enforcement
cases, and ongoing implementation of a number of mobile source rules,
EGU NOX is not expected to increase in Ohio or any of the
States in the immediate region, and overall NOX emissions in
Ohio and the nearby region are expected to decrease substantially
between 2005 and 2020.\2\ Total NOX emissions projections
are shown in Table 8, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ There is more uncertainty about the use of SO2
allowances and future projections for SO2 emissions;
thus, further review and discussion will be needed regarding the
appropriateness of using these emission projections for future PM2.5
SIP approvals and redesignation requests.

  Table 7--EGU NOX Emissions for the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin (TPD) for 2007,
                                              2009, 2012, and 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    2007             2009             2012             2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGU.........................................           1,582            1,552            1,516            1,524
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 8--Total NOX Emissions for the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin (TPD) for the
                                        Years 2005, 2009, 2012, and 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    2005             2009             2012             2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total NOX...................................           8,260            6,778            6,076            4,759
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that 2007 is one of the years Ohio used to demonstrate
monitored attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS, Table 7 shows that EGU
NOX emissions will remain below attainment levels through
2018. If the rate of emissions increase between 2012 and 2018 continues
through 2020, EGU NOX emissions would still remain below
attainment levels in 2020. Furthermore, as shown in Table 8, total
NOX emissions clearly continue to decrease substantially
throughout the maintenance period.
    Ozone modeling performed by LADCO using this emissions data
supports the conclusion that the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain area will
maintain the standard throughout the maintenance period. Peak modeled
ozone levels in the area for 2009, 2012 and 2018 are 0.082 ppm, 0.080
ppm, and 0.074 ppm, respectively. These projected ozone levels were
modeled applying only legally enforceable controls, e.g., consent
decrees, rules, the NOX SIP call, federal motor vehicle
control programs (FMVCP), etc. Because these programs will remain in
place, emission levels, and therefore ozone levels, would not be
expected to increase significantly between 2018 and 2020. Given that
projected emissions and modeled ozone levels continue to decrease
substantially through 2018, it is reasonable to infer that a 2020
modeling run would also show levels well below the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.
    As part of its maintenance plan, the State elected to include a
``safety margin'' for the area. A ``safety margin''

is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all
sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the
maintenance plan which continues to demonstrate attainment of the
standard. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions
during one of the years in which the area met the NAAQS. The Columbus
area attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2006-2008 time period.
Ohio used 2006 as the attainment level of emissions for the area. In
the maintenance plan, Ohio EPA projected emission levels for 2020. For
the Columbus area, the emissions from point, area, nonroad, and mobile
sources in 2006 equaled 183.38 tpd of VOC. Ohio EPA projected VOC
emissions for the year 2020 to be 116.65 tpd of VOC. The SIP submission
demonstrates that the Columbus area will continue to maintain the
standard with emissions at this level. The safety margin for VOC is
calculated to be the difference between these amounts or, in this case,
66.73 tpd of VOC for 2020. By this same method, 115.51 tpd (i.e.,
200.23 tpd less 84.72 tpd) is the safety margin for NOX for
2020. The safety margin, or a portion thereof, can be allocated to any
of the source categories, as long as the total attainment level of
emissions is maintained.
d. Monitoring Network
    Ohio currently operates eight ozone monitors in the Columbus area.
Ohio EPA has committed to continue to operate these ozone monitors.
Further, Ohio EPA commits to consult with EPA prior to making changes
to the existing monitoring network, should changes become necessary in
the future. Ohio EPA remains obligated to continue to quality assure
monitoring data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and enter all data
into the Air Quality System in accordance with Federal guidelines.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
    Continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the Columbus area
depends, in part, on the State's efforts toward tracking indicators of
continued attainment during the maintenance period. Ohio's plan for
verifying continued attainment of the 8-hour standard in the Columbus
area consists of plans to continue ambient ozone monitoring in
accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58. Ohio EPA will also
continue to develop and submit periodic emission inventories as
required by the Federal Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (67 FR
39602, June 10, 2002) to track future levels of emissions.
f. Contingency Plan
    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or
prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation
of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should
identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures,
and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also
identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The
maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will
implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant(s) that
were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to
attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
    As required by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio has adopted a
contingency plan for the Columbus area to address possible future ozone
air quality problems. The contingency plan adopted by Ohio has two
levels of response, depending on whether a violation of the 8-hour
ozone standard is only threatened (warning level response) or has
occurred (action level response).
    A warning level response will be triggered when an annual fourth
high monitored value of 0.088 ppm or higher is monitored within the
maintenance area. A warning level response will consist of Ohio EPA
conducting a study to determine whether the ozone value indicates a
trend toward higher ozone values or whether emissions appear to be
increasing. The study will evaluate whether the trend, if any, is
likely to continue and, if so, the control measures necessary to
reverse the trend. The study will consider ease and timing of
implementation as well as economic and social impacts. Implementation
of necessary controls in response to a warning level response trigger
will take place within 12 months from the conclusion of the most recent
ozone season.
    An action level response will be triggered when a two-year average
fourth high value of 0.085 ppm is monitored within the maintenance
area. A violation of the standard (a three-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration of
0.085 ppm or greater) also triggers an action level response. When an
action level response is triggered, Ohio EPA will determine what
additional control measures are needed to assure future attainment of
the ozone standard. Control measures selected will be implemented
within 18 months from the close of the ozone season that prompted the
action level. Ohio EPA will also consider if significant new
regulations not currently included as part of the maintenance
provisions will be implemented in a timely manner and would thus
constitute a response.
    Ohio EPA included the following list of potential contingency
measures in the maintenance plan:
    i. Lower Reid vapor pressure gasoline program;
    ii. Adopt VOC Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) on
existing sources covered by EPA Control Technique Guidelines issued
after the 1990 CAA;
    iii. Apply VOC RACT to smaller existing sources;
    iv. One or more transportation control measures sufficient to
achieve at least half a percent reduction in actual area wide VOC
emissions;
    v. Alternative fuel and diesel retrofit programs for fleet vehicle
operations;
    vi. High volume, low pressure coating application requirements for
autobody facilities;
    vii. Adopt requirements for cold cleaner degreaser operations (low
vapor pressure solvents);
    viii. Require VOC or NOX emission offsets for new and
modified major sources;
    ix. Require VOC or NOX emission offsets for new and
modified minor sources;
    x. Increase the ratio of emission offsets required for new sources;
    xi. Require VOC or NOX controls on new minor sources
(less than 100 tpy); and,
    xii. Adopt NOX RACT for existing combustion sources.
g. Provisions for Future Updates of the Ozone Maintenance Plan
    As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Ohio commits to submit
to the EPA an updated ozone maintenance plan eight years after
redesignation of the Columbus area to cover an additional ten-year
period beyond the initial ten-year maintenance period. As required by
section 175(A) of the CAA, Ohio has committed to retain the VOC and
NOX control measures contained in the SIP prior to
redesignation.
    EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses
the five basic components of a

maintenance plan: Attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a
contingency plan. The maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by Ohio
for the Columbus area meets the requirements of section 175A of the
CAA.

B. Adequacy of Ohio's MVEBs

1. How Are MVEBs Developed and What Are the MVEBs for the Columbus
Area?
    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIP revisions and ozone maintenance plans for ozone
nonattainment areas and for areas seeking redesignations to attainment
of the ozone standard. These emission control strategy SIP revisions
(e.g., reasonable further progress SIP and attainment demonstration SIP
revisions) and ozone maintenance plans create MVEBs based on onroad
mobile source emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors
to address pollution from cars and trucks. The MVEBs are the portions
of the total allowable emissions that are allocated to highway and
transit vehicle use that, together with emissions from other sources in
the area, will provide for attainment or maintenance.
    Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an area seeking a redesignation to
attainment is established for the last year of the maintenance plan.
The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned
transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the
preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58
FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in the
SIP and how to revise the MVEB if needed.
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such
as the construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be
consistent with) the part of the SIP that addresses emissions from cars
and trucks. 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. If a
transportation plan does not conform, most new transportation projects
that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and
procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such
transportation activities to a SIP.
    When reviewing SIP revisions containing MVEBs, including attainment
strategies, rate-of-progress plans, and maintenance plans, EPA must
affirmatively find that the MVEBs are ``adequate'' for use in
determining transportation conformity. Once EPA affirmatively finds the
submitted MVEBs to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes,
the MVEBs are used by state and Federal agencies in determining whether
proposed transportation projects conform to the SIP as required by
section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining
the adequacy of MVEBs are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
    EPA's process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of three
basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a
public comment period; and (3) EPA's finding of adequacy. The process
of determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs was initially
outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999, guidance, ``Conformity Guidance on
Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.'' This
guidance was codified in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments
for the ``New 8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas;
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments--Response to Court Decision
and Additional Rule Change,'' published on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004).
EPA follows this guidance and rulemaking in making its adequacy
determinations.
    The Columbus area's maintenance plan contains new VOC and
NOX MVEBs for the years 2012 and 2020. The availability of
the SIP submission with these 2012 and 2020 MVEBs was announced for
public comment on EPA's Adequacy Web site on February 18, 2009 at:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA
public comment period on adequacy of the 2012 and 2020 MVEBs for the
Columbus area closed on March 20, 2009. No requests for this submittal
or adverse comments on the submittal were received during the adequacy
comment period. In a letter dated March 30, 2009, EPA informed Ohio EPA
that we had found the 2012 and 2020 MVEBs to be adequate for use in
transportation conformity analyses.
    EPA, through this rulemaking, is proposing to approve the MVEBs for
use to determine transportation conformity in the Columbus area because
EPA has determined that the area can maintain attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for the relevant maintenance period with mobile source
emissions at the levels of the MVEBs. Ohio EPA has determined the 2012
MVEBs for the Columbus area to be 54.86 tpd for VOC and 91.64 tpd for
NOX. Ohio EPA has determined the 2020 MVEBs for the area to
be 36.60 tpd for VOC and 46.61 tpd for NOX. These MVEBs are
consistent with the onroad mobile source VOC and NOX
emissions projected by Ohio EPA for 2012 and 2020, as summarized in
Table 6 above. Ohio has demonstrated that the Columbus area can
maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with mobile source emissions of 54.86
tpd and 36.60 tpd of VOC and 91.64 tpd and 46.615 tpd of NOX
in 2012 and 2020, respectively, since emissions will remain under
attainment year emission levels.
2. What Is a Safety Margin?
    A ``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment level
of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions
(from all sources) in the maintenance plan. As noted in Table 6, the
Columbus area emissions are projected to have safety margins of 45.02
tpd for VOC and 60.62 tpd for NOX in 2012 (the difference
between the attainment year, 2006, emissions and the projected 2012
emissions for all sources in the Columbus area). For 2020, the Columbus
area emissions are projected to have safety margins of 66.73 tpd for
VOC and 115.51 tpd for NOX. Even if emissions reached the
full level of the safety margin, the counties would still demonstrate
maintenance since emission levels would equal those in the attainment
year.
    The MVEBs requested by Ohio EPA contain safety margins for mobile
sources smaller than the allowable safety margins reflected in the
total emissions for the Columbus area. The State is not requesting
allocation of the entire available safety margins reflected in the
demonstration of maintenance. Therefore, even though the State is
requesting MVEBs that exceed the projected onroad mobile source
emissions for 2012 and 2020 contained in the demonstration of
maintenance, the increase in onroad mobile source emissions that can be
considered for transportation conformity purposes is well within the
safety margins of the ozone maintenance demonstration. Further, once
allocated to mobile sources, these safety margins will not be available
for use by other sources.

C. 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory

    As discussed above, section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires areas to
submit a base year emissions inventory. As part of Ohio's redesignation
request for the

Columbus area, the State submitted a 2002 base year emissions
inventory. This inventory is discussed above and summarized in Table 3.
EPA is proposing to approve this 2002 base year inventory as meeting
the section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirement.

VII. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Columbus area has
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the
maintenance plan SIP revision for the Columbus area. EPA's proposed
approval of the maintenance plan is based on Ohio's demonstration that
the plan meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA, as
described more fully above. After evaluating Ohio's redesignation
request, EPA believes that it meets the redesignation criteria set
forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Therefore, EPA is proposing
to approve the redesignation of the Columbus area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The final approval of this
redesignation request would change the official designation for the
Columbus area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard. EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base year emissions
inventory for the Columbus area as meeting the requirements of section
172(c)(3) of the CAA. Finally, EPA also finds adequate and is proposing
to approve the State's 2012 and 2020 MVEBs for the section 172(c)(3)
area.

VIII. 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 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

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: June 4, 2009.
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E9-13855 Filed 6-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P