[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38247-38256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15295]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0338; FRL-9827-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Ohio; Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of the Wheeling Area to 
Attainment of the 1997 Annual Standard for Fine Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; Supplemental.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a supplement to its proposed approval of Ohio's 
request to redesignate the Ohio portion of the Wheeling, West Virginia-
Ohio, area to attainment for the 1997 annual National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS or standard) for fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5). This supplemental proposal revises and expands the 
basis for proposing approval of the state's request, in light of 
developments since EPA issued its initial proposal on November 30, 
2012. This supplemental proposal addresses the effects of a January 4, 
2013, decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia (DC Circuit or Court) to remand to EPA two final rules 
implementing the 1997 PM2.5 standard. In this supplemental 
proposal, EPA is also proposing to approve a supplement to the emission 
inventories previously submitted by Ohio. EPA is proposing that the 
inventories for ammonia and volatile organic compounds (VOC), in 
conjunction with the inventories for nitrogen oxides (NOX), 
direct PM2.5, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) that EPA 
previously proposed to approve, meet the comprehensive emissions 
inventory requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). EPA is 
seeking comment only on the issues raised in its supplemental proposal, 
and is not re-opening for comment other issues raised in its prior 
proposal.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 26, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0338, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. E-Mail: [email protected].
    3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.
    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, 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-
2012-0338. 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. 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 
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 (312) 353-8777 before visiting the Region 5 
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental 
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 
(AR-18J),

[[Page 38248]]

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777, [email protected].

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

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background for the supplemental proposal?
III. On what specific issues is EPA taking comments?
    A. Effect of the January 4, 2013, DC Circuit Decision Regarding 
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4
    1. Background
    2. Supplemental Proposal on This Issue
    a. Applicable Requirements for Purposes of Evaluating the 
Redesignation Request
    b. Subpart 4 Requirements and Ohio's Redesignation Request
    c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5 Precursors
    d. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of Precursors
    B. Ammonia and VOC Comprehensive Emissions Inventories
IV. Summary of Proposed Actions
V. 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 is the background for the supplemental proposal?

    On April 16, 2012, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) 
submitted a request to EPA to redesignate the Ohio portion of the 
Wheeling, West Virginia-Ohio nonattainment area (Belmont County, Ohio) 
to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and for EPA 
approval of Ohio's state implementation plan (SIP) revision containing 
an emissions inventory and a maintenance plan for the area.
    On December 2, 2011, EPA published a notice of final rulemaking 
determining that the air quality in the Wheeling area has met the 1997 
annual PM2.5 standard (76 FR 75464). On November 30, 2012, 
EPA published a proposed rulemaking determining further that the Ohio 
portion of the area has met the requirements for redesignation under 
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA (77 FR 71371). In that rulemaking EPA 
proposed several related actions. First, EPA proposed to approve the 
request from OEPA to change the legal designation of the Ohio portion 
of the Wheeling area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also proposed to approve Ohio's 
PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Ohio portion of the Wheeling 
area as a revision to the Ohio SIP because the plan meets the 
requirements of section 175A of the CAA. In addition, EPA proposed to 
approve 2006 emissions inventories for primary PM2.5, 
NOX, and SO2, documented in Ohio's April 16, 
2012, PM2.5 redesignation request submittal as satisfying 
the requirement in section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for a comprehensive, 
current emission inventory. Finally, EPA proposed a finding of 
insignificance of motor vehicle emissions for the Ohio portion of the 
Wheeling area (such that no motor vehicle emission budgets for 
emissions of directly emitted PM2.5 and NOX are 
necessary). EPA did not receive adverse comments on the proposed 
rulemaking.
    Today, EPA is issuing a supplement to its November 30, 2012, 
proposed rulemaking. This supplemental proposal addresses two separate 
issues which affect the proposed redesignation and which have arisen 
since the issuance of the proposal: A recent decision of the D.C. 
Circuit, and Ohio's supplemental submission of comprehensive ammonia 
and VOC emissions inventories.
    On January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 
the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the ``Final Clean Air Fine Particle 
Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the 
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final rule (73 FR 
28321, May 16, 2008). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). In a supplemental 
submission to EPA on April 30, 2013, Ohio submitted 2007/2008 ammonia 
and VOC emissions inventories to supplement the emissions inventories 
that had previously been submitted.

III. On what specific issues is EPA taking comments?

A. Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding 
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4

1. Background
    As discussed above, on January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources 
Defense Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the ``Final 
Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 
2007) and the ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program 
for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' 
final rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, ``1997 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule''). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 
The Court found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general implementation 
provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA, rather than 
the particulate-matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of part D of 
title I.
2. Supplemental Proposal on This Issue
    In this portion of EPA's supplemental proposal, EPA is soliciting 
comment on the limited issue of the effect of the Court's January 4, 
2013, ruling on the proposed redesignation of the Ohio portion of the 
Wheeling area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 
standard. As explained below, EPA is proposing to determine that the 
Court's January 4, 2013, decision does not prevent EPA from 
redesignating the Ohio portion of the Wheeling area to attainment, 
because even in light of the Court's decision, redesignation for this 
area is appropriate under the CAA and EPA's longstanding 
interpretations of the CAA's provisions regarding redesignation. First, 
EPA explains its longstanding interpretation that requirements that are 
imposed, or that become due, after a complete redesignation request is 
submitted for an area that is attaining the standard, are not 
applicable for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. Second, 
EPA shows that, even if EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements to the 
Ohio portion of the Wheeling area redesignation request and disregards 
the provisions of its 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule 
recently remanded by the Court, the state's request for redesignation 
of this area still qualifies for approval. EPA's discussion takes

[[Page 38249]]

into account the effect of the Court's ruling on the area's maintenance 
plan, which EPA views as approvable when subpart 4 requirements are 
considered.
a. Applicable Requirements for Purposes of Evaluating the Redesignation 
Request
    With respect to the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the 
Court's January 4, 2013, ruling rejected EPA's reasons for implementing 
the PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with the provisions of 
subpart 1, and remanded that matter to EPA, so that it could address 
implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of 
part D of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For the purposes of 
evaluating Ohio's redesignation request for the Ohio portion of the 
Wheeling area, to the extent that implementation under subpart 4 would 
impose additional requirements for areas designated nonattainment, EPA 
believes that those requirements are not ``applicable'' for the 
purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not required to 
consider subpart 4 requirements with respect to the Ohio portion of the 
Wheeling area redesignation. Under its longstanding interpretation of 
the CAA, EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a 
threshold matter, that the part D provisions which are ``applicable'' 
and which must be approved in order for EPA to redesignate an area 
include only those which came due prior to a state's submittal of a 
complete redesignation request. See ``Procedures for Processing 
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John 
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 
(Calcagni memorandum). See also ``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 Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air and 
Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro memorandum); Final Redesignation 
of Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 12465-66, March 7, 1995); Final 
Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 FR 25418, 25424-27, May 12, 
2003); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding 
EPA's redesignation rulemaking applying this interpretation and 
expressly rejecting Sierra Club's view that the meaning of 
``applicable'' under the statute is ``whatever should have been in the 
plan at the time of attainment rather than whatever actually was in the 
plan and already implemented or due at the time of attainment'').\1\ In 
this case, at the time that Ohio submitted its redesignation request, 
requirements under subpart 4 were not due, and indeed, were not yet 
known to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent 
to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain 
applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required 
as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's view that, for purposes of evaluating the Ohio portion of the 
Wheeling area's redesignation, the subpart 4 requirements were not due 
at the time Ohio submitted the redesignation request is in keeping with 
the EPA's interpretation of subpart 2 requirements for subpart 1 ozone 
areas redesignated subsequent to the D.C. Circuit's decision in South 
Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In 
South Coast, the Court found that EPA was not permitted to implement 
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely under subpart 1, and held that 
EPA was required under the statute to implement the standard under the 
ozone-specific requirements of subpart 2 as well. Subsequent to the 
South Coast decision, in evaluating and acting upon redesignation 
requests for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard that were submitted to EPA 
for areas under subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding interpretation 
of the CAA that ``applicable requirements'', for purposes of evaluating 
a redesignation, are those that had been due at the time the 
redesignation request was submitted. See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation 
of Manitowoc County and Door County Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 
22050, April 27, 2010). In those actions, EPA therefore did not 
consider subpart 2 requirements to be ``applicable'' for the purposes 
of evaluating whether the area should be redesignated under section 
107(d)(3)(E).
    EPA's interpretation derives from the provisions of CAA section 
107(d)(3). Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an area to be 
redesignated, a state must meet ``all requirements `applicable' to the 
area under section 110 and part D''. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides 
that the EPA must have fully approved the ``applicable'' SIP for the 
area seeking redesignation. These two sections read together support 
EPA's interpretation of ``applicable'' as only those requirements that 
came due prior to submission of a complete redesignation request. 
First, holding states to an ongoing obligation to adopt new CAA 
requirements that arose after the state submitted its redesignation 
request, in order to be redesignated, would make it problematic or 
impossible for EPA to act on redesignation requests in accordance with 
the 18-month deadline Congress set for EPA action in section 
107(d)(3)(D). If ``applicable requirements'' were interpreted to be a 
continuing flow of requirements with no reasonable limitation, states, 
after submitting a redesignation request, would be forced continuously 
to make additional SIP submissions that in turn would require EPA to 
undertake further notice-and-comment rulemaking actions to act on those 
submissions. This would create a regime of unceasing rulemaking that 
would delay action on the redesignation request beyond the 18-month 
timeframe provided by the Act for this purpose.
    Second, a fundamental premise for redesignating a nonattainment 
area to attainment is that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS due 
to emission reductions from existing controls. Thus, an area for which 
a redesignation request has been submitted would have already attained 
the NAAQS as a result of satisfying statutory requirements that came 
due prior to the submission of the request. Absent a showing that 
unadopted and unimplemented requirements are necessary for future 
maintenance, it is reasonable to view the requirements applicable for 
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request as including only 
those SIP requirements that have already come due. These are the 
requirements that led to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, for 
redesignation approval, that a state also satisfy additional SIP 
requirements coming due after the state submits its complete 
redesignation request, and while EPA is reviewing it, would compel the 
state to do more than is necessary to attain the NAAQS, without a 
showing that the additional requirements are necessary for maintenance.
    In the context of the Ohio portion of the Wheeling area's 
redesignation, the timing and nature of the Court's January 4, 2013, 
decision in NRDC v. EPA compound the consequences of imposing 
requirements that come due after the redesignation request is 
submitted. While Ohio submitted its redesignation request on April 16, 
2012, and EPA proposed to approve it on November 30, 2012, the Court 
did not issue its decision remanding EPA's 1997 PM2.5 
implementation rule concerning the applicability of the provisions of 
subpart 4 until January 4, 2013.
    To require Ohio's fully-completed and long-pending redesignation 
request to comply now with requirements of subpart 4 would be to give 
retroactive

[[Page 38250]]

effect to such requirements when the state had no notice that it was 
required to meet them. The DC Circuit recognized the inequity of this 
type of retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. 
Cir. 2002),\2\ where it upheld the District Court's ruling refusing to 
make retroactive EPA's determination that the St. Louis area did not 
meet its attainment deadline. In that case, petitioners urged the Court 
to make EPA's nonattainment determination effective as of the date that 
the statute required, rather than the later date on which EPA actually 
made the determination. The Court rejected this view, stating that 
applying it ``would likely impose large costs on States, which would 
face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution prevention 
plans . . . even though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 
68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable to penalize Ohio by rejecting 
its redesignation request for an area that is already attaining the 
1997 PM2.5 standard and that met all applicable requirements 
known to be in effect at the time of the request. For EPA now to reject 
the redesignation request solely because the state did not expressly 
address subpart 4 requirements of which it had no notice, would inflict 
the same unfairness condemned by the Court in Sierra Club v. Whitman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and distinguished in a 
recent D.C. Circuit decision that addressed retroactivity in a quite 
different context, where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to 
give its regulations retroactive effect. National Petrochemical and 
Refiners Ass'n v. EPA. 630 F.3d 145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing 
denied 643 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 571 
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Subpart 4 Requirements and Ohio's Redesignation Request
    Even if EPA were to take the view that the Court's January 4, 2013, 
decision requires that, in the context of pending redesignations, 
subpart 4 requirements were due and in effect at the time the state 
submitted its redesignation request, EPA proposes to determine that the 
Ohio portion of the Wheeling area still qualifies for redesignation to 
attainment. As explained below, EPA believes that the redesignation 
request for the Ohio portion of the Wheeling area, though not expressed 
in terms of subpart 4 requirements, substantively meets the 
requirements of that subpart for purposes of redesignating the area to 
attainment.
    With respect to evaluating the relevant substantive requirements of 
subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating the Ohio portion of the 
Wheeling area, EPA notes that subpart 4 incorporates components of 
subpart 1 of part D, which contains general air quality planning 
requirements for areas designated as nonattainment. See Section 172(c). 
Subpart 4 itself contains specific planning and scheduling requirements 
for PM10 \3\ nonattainment areas, and under the Court's 
January 4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory 
requirements also apply for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA 
has longstanding general guidance that interprets the 1990 amendments 
to the CAA, making recommendations to states for meeting the statutory 
requirements for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See, ``State 
Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title 
I of the Clear Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 
1992) (the ``General Preamble''). In the General Preamble, EPA 
discussed the relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements, 
and pointed out that subpart 1 requirements were to an extent 
``subsumed by, or integrally related to, the more specific PM-10 
requirements.'' 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 1992). EPA's previously 
published proposal for this redesignation action addressed how the 
Wheeling area meets the requirements for redesignation under subpart 1. 
These subpart 1 requirements include, among other things, provisions 
for attainment demonstrations, reasonably available control measures 
(RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), emissions inventories, and 
contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 
micrometers in diameter or smaller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of this redesignation, in order to identify any 
additional requirements which would apply under subpart 4, we are 
considering the Ohio portion of the Wheeling area to be a ``moderate'' 
PM2.5 nonattainment area. Under section 188 of the CAA, all 
areas designated nonattainment areas under subpart 4 would initially be 
classified by operation of law as ``moderate'' nonattainment areas, and 
would remain moderate nonattainment areas unless and until EPA 
reclassifies the area as a ``serious'' nonattainment area.\4\ 
Accordingly, EPA believes that it is appropriate to limit the 
evaluation of the potential impact of subpart 4 requirements to those 
that would be applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. Sections 
189(a) and (c) of subpart 4 apply to moderate nonattainment areas and 
include the following: (1) An approved permit program for construction 
of new and modified major stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); 
(2) an attainment demonstration (section 189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions 
for RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) quantitative milestones 
demonstrating RFP toward attainment by the applicable attainment date 
(section 189(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Section 188(a) also provides that EPA publish a notice 
announcing the classification of each area under subpart 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section 
189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit provisions 
requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM10, without adding 
to them. Consequently, EPA believes that section 189(a)(1)(A) does not 
itself impose for redesignation purposes any additional requirements 
for moderate areas beyond those contained in subpart 1.\5\ In any 
event, in the context of redesignation, EPA has long relied on the 
interpretation that a fully approved nonattainment new source review 
program is not considered an applicable requirement for redesignation, 
provided the area can maintain the standard with a prevention of 
significant deterioration (PSD) program after redesignation. A 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.'' See also 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 
189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this redesignation is 
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under 
subpart 4,\6\ when EPA evaluates a redesignation request under either 
subpart 1 and/or 4, any area that is attaining the PM2.5 
standard is viewed as having satisfied the attainment planning 
requirements for these subparts. For redesignations, EPA has for many 
years interpreted attainment-linked requirements as not applicable for 
areas attaining the standard. In the General Preamble, EPA stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, milestone 
requirements, contingency measures.

    The requirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request 
for redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality 
data for the area must show that the area has already attained. 
Showing that the State will make RFP towards attainment will, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
therefore, have no meaning at that point.


[[Page 38251]]


``General Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990''; (57 FR 13498, 13564, April 16, 1992).

The General Preamble also explained 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.

Id.

    EPA similarly stated in its 1992 Calcagni memorandum that, ``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.''
    It is evident that even if we were to consider the Court's January 
4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that attainment-related 
requirements specific to subpart 4 should be imposed retroactively \7\ 
and thus are now past due, those requirements do not apply to an area 
that is attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standard, for the purpose 
of evaluating a pending request to redesignate the area to attainment. 
EPA has consistently enunciated this interpretation of applicable 
requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) since the General Preamble was 
published more than twenty years ago. Courts have recognized the scope 
of EPA's authority to interpret ``applicable requirements'' in the 
redesignation context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As EPA has explained above, we do not believe that the 
Court's January 4, 2013, decision should be interpreted so as to 
impose these requirements on the states retroactively. Sierra Club 
v. Whitman, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, even outside the context of redesignations, EPA has 
viewed the obligations to submit attainment-related SIP planning 
requirements of subpart 4 as inapplicable for areas that EPA determines 
are attaining the standard. EPA's prior ``Clean Data Policy'' 
rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also governed by the 
requirements of subpart 4, explain EPA's reasoning. They describe the 
effects of a determination of attainment on the attainment-related SIP 
planning requirements of subpart 4. See ``Determination of Attainment 
for Coso Junction Nonattainment Area,'' (75 FR 27944, May 19, 2010). 
See also Coso Junction proposed PM10 redesignation, (75 FR 
36023, 36027, June 24, 2010); Proposed and Final Determinations of 
Attainment for San Joaquin Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 40954-55, 
July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 63641, 63643-47 October 30, 2006). In short, 
EPA in this context has also long concluded that to require states to 
meet superfluous SIP planning requirements is not necessary and not 
required by the CAA, so long as those areas continue to attain the 
relevant NAAQS.
    In its November 30, 2012, proposal for this action, EPA proposed to 
determine that the Ohio portion of the Wheeling area has attained the 
1997 PM2.5 standard and therefore meets the attainment-
related plan requirements of subpart 1. Under its longstanding 
interpretation, EPA is proposing to determine here that the area also 
meets the attainment-related plan requirements of subpart 4.
    Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude that the requirements to submit 
an attainment demonstration under 189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination 
under section 172(c) and section 189(a)(1)(c), and a RFP demonstration 
under 189(c)(1) are satisfied for purposes of evaluating the 
redesignation request.
c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5 Precursors
    The D.C. Circuit, in NRDC v. EPA, remanded to EPA the two rules at 
issue in the case with instructions to EPA to re-promulgate them 
consistent with the requirements of subpart 4. The Court's opinion 
raises the issue of the appropriate approach to addressing 
PM2.5 precursors in this and future EPA actions. While past 
implementation of subpart 4 for PM10 has allowed for control 
of PM10 precursors such as NOX from major 
stationary, mobile, and area sources in order to attain the standard as 
expeditiously as practicable, CAA section 189(e) specifically provides 
that control requirements for major stationary sources of direct 
PM10 shall also apply to PM10 precursors from 
those sources, except where EPA determines that major stationary 
sources of such precursors ``do not contribute significantly to 
PM10 levels which exceed the standard in the area.''
    EPA's 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule, remanded by the 
D.C. Circuit, contained rebuttable presumptions concerning certain 
PM2.5 precursors applicable to attainment plans and control 
measures related to those plans. Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA 
provided, among other things, that a state was ``not required to 
address VOC [and ammonia] as . . . PM2.5 attainment plan 
precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of VOC [and ammonia] emissions in 
the State for control measures.'' EPA intended these to be rebuttable 
presumptions. EPA established these presumptions at the time because of 
uncertainties regarding the emission inventories for these pollutants 
and the effectiveness of specific control measures in various regions 
of the country in reducing PM2.5 concentrations. EPA also 
left open the possibility for such regulation of VOC and ammonia in 
specific areas where that was necessary.
    The Court in its January 4, 2013, decision made reference to both 
section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51. 1002, and stated that, ``In light of our 
disposition, we need not address the petitioners' challenge to the 
presumptions in [40 CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic compounds and 
ammonia are not PM2.5 precursors, as subpart 4 expressly 
governs precursor presumptions.'' NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10.
    Elsewhere in the Court's opinion, however, the Court observed:

    Ammonia is a precursor to fine particulate matter, making it a 
precursor to both PM2.5 and PM10. For a 
PM10 nonattainment area governed by subpart 4, a 
precursor is presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. Sec.  7513a(e) 
[section 189(e)].

Id. at 21, n.7.

    For a number of reasons, EPA believes that the Court's decision on 
this aspect of subpart 4 does not preclude EPA's approval of Ohio's 
redesignation request for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. First, while 
the Court, citing section 189(e), stated that ``for a PM10 
area governed by subpart 4, a precursor is `presumptively regulated,' 
'' the Court expressly declined to decide the specific challenge to 
EPA's 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule provisions regarding 
ammonia and VOC as precursors. The Court had no occasion to reach 
whether and how it was substantively necessary to regulate any specific 
precursor in a particular PM2.5 nonattainment area, and did 
not address what might be necessary for purposes of acting upon a 
redesignation request.
    However, even if EPA takes the view that the requirements of 
subpart 4 were deemed applicable at the time the state submitted the 
redesignation request, and disregards the implementation rule's 
rebuttable presumptions regarding ammonia and VOC as PM2.5 
precursors, the regulatory consequence would be to consider the need 
for regulation of all precursors from any sources in the area to 
demonstrate attainment and to apply the section 189(e) provisions to 
major stationary sources of precursors. In the case of the Ohio portion 
of the Wheeling area, EPA believes that doing so would

[[Page 38252]]

not affect the approvability of the proposed redesignation of the area 
for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. The entire Wheeling area has 
attained the standard without any specific additional controls of VOC 
and ammonia emissions from any sources in the area.
    Precursors in subpart 4 are specifically regulated under the 
provisions of section 189(e), which requires, with important 
exceptions, control requirements for major stationary sources of 
PM10 precursors.\8\ Under subpart 1 and EPA's prior 
implementation rule, all major stationary sources of PM2.5 
precursors were subject to regulation, with the exception of ammonia 
and VOC. Thus we must address here whether additional controls of 
ammonia and VOC from major stationary sources are required under 
section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to redesignate the Ohio portion of 
the Wheeling area for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. As explained 
below, we do not believe that any additional controls of ammonia and 
VOC are required in the context of this redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for purposes of 
demonstrating attainment as expeditiously as practicable, a state is 
required to evaluate all economically and technologically feasible 
control measures for direct PM emissions and precursor emissions, 
and adopt those measures that are deemed reasonably available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the General Preamble, EPA discusses its approach to implementing 
section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538-13542. With regard to precursor 
regulation under section 189(e), the General Preamble explicitly stated 
that control of VOCs under other Act requirements may suffice to 
relieve a state from the need to adopt precursor controls under section 
189(e). 57 FR 13542. EPA in this supplemental proposal proposes to 
determine that the Ohio SIP has met the provisions of section 189(e) 
with respect to ammonia and VOCs as precursors. This proposed 
supplemental determination is based on our findings that: (1) The Ohio 
portion of the Wheeling area contains no major stationary sources of 
ammonia, and (2) existing major stationary sources of VOC are 
adequately controlled under other provisions of the CAA regulating the 
ozone NAAQS.\9\ In the alternative, EPA proposes to determine that, 
under the express exception provisions of section 189(e), and in the 
context of the redesignation of the Ohio portion of the Wheeling area, 
which is attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, at 
present ammonia and VOC precursors from major stationary sources do not 
contribute significantly to levels exceeding the 1997 PM2.5 
standard in the area. See 57 FR 13539-13542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Ohio portion of the Wheeling area has reduced VOC 
emissions through the implementation of various control programs 
including VOC Reasonably Available Control Technology regulations 
and various on-road and non-road motor vehicle control programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule 
provisions in 40 CFR 51.1002 were not directed at evaluation of 
PM2.5 precursors in the context of redesignation, but at SIP 
plans and control measures required to bring a nonattainment area into 
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. By contrast, 
redesignation to attainment primarily requires the area to have already 
attained due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and to 
demonstrate that controls in place can continue to maintain the 
standard. Thus, even if we regard the Court's January 4, 2013, decision 
as calling for ``presumptive regulation'' of ammonia and VOC for 
PM2.5 under the attainment planning provisions of subpart 4, 
those provisions in and of themselves do not require additional 
controls of these precursors for an area that already qualifies for 
redesignation, nor does EPA believe that requiring Ohio to address 
precursors differently than they have already would result in a 
substantively different outcome.
    Although, as EPA has emphasized, its consideration here of 
precursor requirements under subpart 4 is in the context of a 
redesignation to attainment, EPA's existing interpretation of subpart 4 
requirements with respect to precursors in attainment plans for 
PM10 contemplates that states may develop attainment plans 
that regulate only those precursors that are necessary for purposes of 
attainment in the area in question, i.e., states may determine that 
only certain precursors need be regulated for attainment and control 
purposes.\10\ Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of 
subpart 4 for PM10.\11\ EPA believes that application of 
this approach to PM2.5 precursors under subpart 4 is 
reasonable. Because the Wheeling area has already attained the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS with its current approach to regulation of 
PM2.5 precursors, EPA believes that it is reasonable to 
conclude in the context of this redesignation that there is no need to 
revisit the attainment control strategy with respect to the treatment 
of precursors. Even if the Court's decision is construed to impose an 
obligation, in evaluating this redesignation request, to consider 
additional precursors under subpart 4, it would not affect EPA's 
approval here of Ohio's request for redesignation of the Ohio portion 
of the Wheeling area. In the context of a redesignation, the area has 
shown that it has attained the standard. Moreover, the state has shown 
and EPA has proposed to determine that attainment in this area is due 
to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions on all precursors 
necessary to provide for continued attainment. It follows logically 
that no further control of additional precursors is necessary. 
Accordingly, EPA does not view the January 4, 2013, decision of the 
Court as precluding redesignation of the Ohio portion of the Wheeling 
area to attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans for California--San Joaquin Valley PM-10 Nonattainment Area; 
Serious Area Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual PM-10 
Standards,'' 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) (approving a PM10 
attainment plan that impose controls on direct PM10 and 
NOX emissions and did not impose controls on 
SO2, VOC, or ammonia emissions).
    \11\ See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et al., 423 
F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, even if Ohio were required to address precursors for the 
Ohio portion of the Wheeling area under subpart 4 rather than under 
subpart 1, as interpreted in EPA's remanded PM2.5 
implementation rule, EPA would still conclude that the area had met all 
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation in accordance 
with section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v).
d. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of Precursors
    With regard to the redesignation of the Ohio portion of the 
Wheeling area, in evaluating the effect of the Court's remand of EPA's 
implementation rule, which included presumptions against consideration 
of VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, EPA in this 
supplemental proposal is also considering the impact of the decision on 
the maintenance plan required under sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). 
To begin with, EPA notes that the area has attained the 1997 
PM2.5 standard and that the state has shown that attainment 
of that standard is due to permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions.
    In its prior proposal notice for this action, EPA proposed to 
determine that the state's maintenance plan shows continued maintenance 
of the standard by tracking the levels of the precursors whose control 
brought about attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standard in the 
Ohio portion of the Wheeling area. EPA therefore believes that the only 
additional consideration related to the maintenance plan requirements 
that results from the Court's January 4, 2013, decision is that of 
assessing the potential role of VOC and ammonia in demonstrating 
continued maintenance

[[Page 38253]]

in this area. As explained below, based upon documentation provided by 
the state and supporting information, EPA believes that the maintenance 
plan for the Ohio portion of the Wheeling area need not include any 
additional emission reductions of VOC or ammonia in order to provide 
for continued maintenance of the standard.
    First, as noted above in EPA's discussion of section 189(e), VOC 
emission levels in this area have historically been well controlled 
under SIP requirements related to ozone and other pollutants. Second, 
total ammonia emissions throughout the Ohio portion of the Wheeling 
area are very low, estimated to be less than 500 tons per year. See 
Table 4 below. This amount of ammonia emissions is especially small in 
comparison to the total amounts of SO2, NOX, and 
even direct PM2.5 emissions from sources in the area. Third, 
as described below, available information shows that no precursor, 
including VOC and ammonia, is expected to increase over the maintenance 
period so as to interfere with or undermine the state's maintenance 
demonstration.
    Ohio's maintenance plan shows that emissions of direct 
PM2.5, SO2, and NOX are projected to 
decrease by 212.68 tons per year (tpy), 31,342.08 tpy, and 2,137.21 
tpy, respectively, over the maintenance period. See Tables 1-3 below. 
In addition, emissions inventories used in the regulatory impact 
analysis (RIA) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS show that VOC 
emissions are projected to decrease by 1,155.91 tpy, and that ammonia 
emissions will decrease by 17.98 tpy, between 2007 and 2020. See Table 
4 below. While the RIA emissions inventories are only projected out to 
2020, there is no reason to believe that the downward trend of VOC and 
ammonia emissions would not continue through 2022. Given that the 
Wheeling area is already attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS even 
with the current level of emissions from sources in the area, the 
downward trend of emissions from VOC and ammonia inventories would be 
consistent with continued attainment of the NAAQS. Indeed, projected 
emissions reductions for the precursors that the state is addressing 
for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS indicate that the area 
should continue to attain the NAAQS following the precursor control 
strategy that the state has already elected to pursue. Even if VOC and 
ammonia emissions were to increase unexpectedly between 2020 and 2022, 
the overall emissions reductions projected in direct PM2.5, 
SO2, and NOX would be sufficient to offset any 
increases. For these reasons, EPA believes that local emissions of all 
of the potential PM2.5 precursors will not increase to the 
extent that they will cause monitored PM2.5 levels to 
violate the 1997 PM2.5 standard during the maintenance 
period.

  Table 1--Comparison of 2005, 2008, 2015, and 2022 Direct PM2.5 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the
                                        Ohio Portion of the Wheeling Area
                                             [Belmont County, Ohio]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Direct PM2.5
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                    Sector                                                                            Net change
                                                    2005         2008         2015         2022       2005-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................         3.39         3.39         3.94          4.40         1.01
EGU \12\......................................        93.85        69.58        20.87          0          -93.85
Area..........................................       307.93       305.38       297.20        289.22       -18.71
Non-road......................................        33.60        29.80        20.84         11.89       -21.71
On-road \13\..................................       105.74        88.66        45.08         26.32       -79.42
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................       544.51       496.81       387.93        331.83      -212.68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 2--Comparison of 2005, 2008, 2015, and 2022 SO2 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Ohio
                                          Portion of the Wheeling Area
                                             [Belmont County, Ohio]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               SO2
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                    Sector                                                                            Net change
                                                    2005         2008         2015         2022       2005-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................         0.13         0.07         0.10          0.11        -0.02
EGU...........................................    37,329.95    15,126.00     8,783.33      6,065.04   -31,264.91
Area..........................................        93.50        92.24        87.16         82.29       -11.21
Non-road......................................        44.82        24.46         8.23          3.51       -41.31
On-road.......................................        30.84         9.38         6.72          6.21       -24.63
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................    37,499.24    15,252.15     8,885.54      6,157.16   -31,342.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \12\ Electric generating units.
    \13\ Emissions projections for the on-road sector were generated 
using the MOVES model.

[[Page 38254]]



    Table 3--Comparison of 2005, 2008, 2015, and 2022 NOX Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Ohio
                                          Portion of the Wheeling Area
                                             [Belmont County, Ohio]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               NOX
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
                     Sector                                                                           Net change
                                                     2005         2008         2015         2022      2005-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point..........................................        22.76        20.67        20.19        18.90        -3.86
EGU............................................     4,149.93     4,167.94     4,477.58     4,738.00       588.07
Area...........................................       284.66       286.90       286.77       287.15         2.49
Non-road.......................................       484.31       444.10       306.14       172.31         -312
On-road........................................     3,179.52     2,593.58     1,279.25       587.61    -2,591.91
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................     8,121.18     7,513.19     6,369.93     5,803.97    -2,137.21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 4--Comparison of 2007 and 2020 VOC and Ammonia Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Ohio Portion
                                              of the Wheeling Area
                                           [Belmont County, Ohio] \14\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     VOC                                  Ammonia
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Sector                                           Net change                             Net change
                                        2007         2020      2007-2020       2007         2020      2007-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................        52.50        51.37        -1.13        56.94        56.09        -0.85
Area..............................       777.12       774.54        -2.58       386.69       391.03         4.34
Non-road..........................       418.70       218.65      -200.05         0.38         0.42         0.04
On-road...........................     1,465.35       513.19      -952.16        48.10        26.58       -21.52
Fires.............................        42.42        42.42            0         2.95         2.95            0
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................     2,756.08     1,600.17    -1,155.91       495.05       477.07       -17.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \14\ These emissions estimates were taken from the emissions 
inventories developed for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, available air quality modeling analyses show continued 
maintenance of the standard during the maintenance period. The current 
air quality design value for the area is 13 micrograms per cubic meter 
([mu]g/m\3\) (based on 2009-11 air quality data), which is well below 
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [mu]g/m\3\. Moreover, the 
modeling analysis conducted for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS indicates that the design value for this area is expected to 
significantly decline through 2020. In the RIA analysis, the 2020 
modeled design value for the Wheeling area is 8.4 [mu]g/m\3\. Given 
that all precursor emissions are projected to decrease through 2022, it 
is reasonable to conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels in 
this area will also continue to decrease through 2022.
    Thus, EPA believes that there is ample justification to conclude 
that the Ohio portion of the Wheeling area should be redesignated, even 
taking into consideration the emissions of other precursors potentially 
relevant to PM2.5. After consideration of the D.C. Circuit's 
January 4, 2013, decision, and for the reasons set forth in this 
supplemental notice, EPA continues to propose approval of Ohio's 
maintenance plan and its request to redesignate the Ohio portion of the 
Wheeling area to attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 annual 
standard.

B. Ammonia and VOC Comprehensive Emissions Inventories

    In this supplemental proposal EPA also addresses the State of 
Ohio's supplemental submission that provides additional information 
concerning ammonia and VOC emissions in the Wheeling area in order to 
meet the emissions inventory requirement of CAA section 172(c)(3). 
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires states to submit a comprehensive, 
accurate, and current emissions inventory for a nonattainment area. For 
purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS, this emissions inventory should 
address not only direct emissions of PM2.5, but also 
emissions of all precursors with the potential to participate in 
PM2.5 formation, i.e., SO2, NOX, VOC 
and ammonia.
    In the November 30, 2012, proposed rule, EPA proposed to approve 
the emissions inventory information for direct PM2.5, 
NOX, and SO2 submitted by OEPA as meeting the 
emissions inventory requirement for the Wheeling area. On April 30, 
2013, OEPA supplemented its submittal with 2007/2008 emissions 
inventories for ammonia and VOC. The additional emissions inventory 
information provided by the state addresses emissions of VOC and 
ammonia from the general source categories of point sources, area 
sources, on-road mobile sources, and non-road mobile sources. The 
state-submitted emissions inventories were based upon information 
generated by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) in 
conjunction with its member states and are presented in Table 5 below.
    LADCO ran the EMS model using data provided by Ohio to generate 
point source emissions estimates. The point source data was obtained 
from Ohio's source facility emissions reporting.
    For area sources, LADCO ran the EMS model using the 2008 National 
Emissions Inventory (NEI) data provided by Ohio. LADCO followed Eastern 
Regional Technical Advisory Committee (ERTAC) recommendations on area 
sources when preparing the data. Agricultural ammonia emissions were 
not taken from NEI; instead emissions were based on Carnegie Mellon 
University's Ammonia Emission Inventory for the Continental United 
States (CMU). Specifically, the CMU 2002 annual emissions were grown to 
reflect 2007 conditions. A process-based ammonia emissions model 
developed

[[Page 38255]]

for LADCO was then used to develop temporal factors to reflect the 
impact of average meteorology on livestock emissions.
    Non-road mobile source emissions were generated using the NMIM2008 
emissions model. LADCO also accounted for three other non-road 
categories not covered by the NMIM model (commercial marine vessels, 
aircraft, and railroads). Marine emissions were based on reports 
prepared by Environ entitled ``LADCO Nonroad Emissions Inventory 
Project for Locomotive, Commercial Marine, and Recreational Marine 
Emission Sources, Final Report, December 2004'' and ``LADCO 2005 
Commercial Marine Emissions, Draft, March 2, 2007.'' Aircraft emissions 
were provided by Ohio and calculated using AP-42 emission factors and 
landing and take-off data provided by the Federal Aviation 
Administration. Rail emissions were based on the 2008 inventory 
developed by ERTAC.
    On-road mobile source emissions were generated using EPA's 
MOVES2010a emissions model.
    EPA notes that the emissions inventory developed by LADCO is 
documented in ``Regional Air Quality Analyses for Ozone, 
PM2.5, and Regional Haze: Base C Emissions Inventory'' 
(September 12, 2011).

 Table 5--Wheeling Area Ammonia and VOC Emissions (tpy) for 2007/2008 by
                              Source Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Sector                        Ammonia        VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................        54.06        48.68
Area..........................................       405.94       863.87
Non-road......................................         0.37       430.01
On-road.......................................        52.82     1,376.69
                                               -------------------------
    Total.....................................       513.19     2,719.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has concluded that the 2007/2008 ammonia and VOC emissions 
inventories provided by Ohio are complete and as accurate as possible 
given the input data available for the relevant source categories. EPA 
also believes that these inventories provide information about VOC and 
ammonia as PM2.5 precursors in the context of evaluating 
redesignation of the Ohio portion of the Wheeling area under subpart 4. 
Therefore, we are proposing to approve the ammonia and VOC emissions 
inventories submitted by Ohio, in conjunction with the NOX, 
direct PM2.5, and SO2 emissions inventories that 
EPA previously proposed to approve, as fully meeting the comprehensive 
inventory requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the Ohio 
portion of the Wheeling area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 
standard. Since EPA's prior proposal addressed other precursor 
emissions inventories, EPA in this supplemental proposal is seeking 
comment only with respect to the additional inventories for VOC and 
ammonia that Ohio has submitted.

IV. Summary of Proposed Actions

    After fully considering the D.C. Circuit's decision in the NRDC v. 
EPA on EPA's 1997 PM2.5 Implementation rule, EPA in this 
supplemental notice is proposing to proceed with approval of the 
request to redesignate the Ohio portion of the Wheeling area to 
attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and of the 
associated maintenance plan. EPA is concluding that the D.C. Circuit 
decision regarding the applicability of the requirements of subpart 4 
of part D of title I of the CAA does not change the applicable 
requirements for redesignation of the Parkersburg area to attainment of 
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In this supplemental notice, EPA is 
also proposing to approve the 2007/2008 ammonia and VOC emissions 
inventories as meeting, in conjunction with the NOX, direct 
PM2.5 and SO2 inventories that EPA previously 
proposed to approve, the comprehensive emissions inventory requirements 
of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. EPA is seeking comment only on the 
issues raised in its supplemental proposals, and is not re-opening 
comment on other issues addressed in its prior proposal.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the 
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) 
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not 
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those 
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of 
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the 
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have 
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 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, these proposed actions do not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law and the CAA. For that 
reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are 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.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are 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
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible

[[Page 38256]]

methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because a determination of attainment is an action that affects the 
status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory 
requirements on tribes, impact any existing sources of air pollution on 
tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air 
quality standards in tribal lands.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.

40 CFR Part 81

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

    Dated: June 13, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-15295 Filed 6-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P