[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38256-38265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15301]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0212; FRL-9827-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Ohio; Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta 
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 Parkersburg-Marietta, 
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 (D.C. 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-2012-0212, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: [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-
2012-0212. 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), 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, D.C. Circuit Decision 
Regarding PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4
    1. Background

[[Page 38257]]

    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 February 29, 2012, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 
(OEPA) submitted a request to EPA to redesignate the Ohio portion of 
the Parkersburg-Marietta, West Virginia-Ohio nonattainment area 
(Washington 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 air quality in the Parkersburg-Marietta 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 71383). 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 February 29, 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 the State of 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 
Parkersburg-Marietta 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 
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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 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

[[Page 38258]]

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 
Parkersburg-Marietta 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 
Parkersburg-Marietta 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 
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 February 
29, 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 effect to such requirements when the state had no notice 
that it was required to meet them. The D.C. Circuit recognized the 
inequity of this type of retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. Whitman, 
285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),\2\

[[Page 38259]]

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 Parkersburg-Marietta area still qualifies for 
redesignation to attainment. As explained below, EPA believes that the 
redesignation request for the Ohio portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta 
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 
Parkersburg-Marietta 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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.

    ``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

[[Page 38260]]

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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 DC 
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 Parkersburg-Marietta area, EPA believes that doing so would not 
affect the approvability of the proposed redesignation of the area for 
the 1997 PM2.5 standard. The entire Parkersburg-Marietta 
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

[[Page 38261]]

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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 Parkersburg-
Marietta 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 
Parkersburg-Marietta 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 
Parkersburg-Marietta 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 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 Parkersburg-Marietta area need not include any 
additional emission reductions of VOC or ammonia in order to provide 
for continued maintenance of the standard.

[[Page 38262]]

    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 Parkersburg-
Marietta area are very low, estimated to be less than 1,300 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 VOC is expected to decrease over the maintenance period so as not 
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 22.34 tons per year (tpy), 101,435.07 tpy, and 15,948.43 
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 968.82 tpy, and that ammonia 
emissions will increase by 87.45 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 
emissions would not continue through 2022. While ammonia emissions are 
projected to increase, given that the Parkersburg-Marietta 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 inventories would be consistent with continued 
attainment and even a small increase in ammonia emissions would not 
cause a violation 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 emissions were to 
increase unexpectedly, and ammonia emissions were to increase further 
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 Parkersburg-Marietta Area
                                            [Washington County, Ohio]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Direct PM2.5
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Sector                                                                                 Net change
                                       2005            2008            2015            2022          2005-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................          472.37          471.72          470.21          468.70           -3.02
EGU \12\........................          384.81          392.62          407.19          418.67           26.05
Area............................          148.43          222.16          251.82          254.36           35.20
Non-road........................           47.29           41.33           27.71           14.06          -27.27
On-road \13\....................           90.45           75.52           41.68           25.22          -50.30
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................        1,143.35        1,203.35        1,198.61        1,181.01          -22.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Electric generating units.
\13\ Emissions projections for the on-road sector were generated using the MOVES model.


    Table 2--Comparison of 2005, 2008, 2015, and 2022 SO2 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Ohio
                                    Portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta Area
                                            [Washington County, Ohio]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        SO2
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Sector                                                                                 Net change
                                       2005            2008            2015            2022          2005-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................        5,200.90        5,372.72        5,744.96        6,122.46          749.74
EGU.............................      140,957.01      133,348.05       61,849.00       31,206.55     -102,141.50
Area............................            9.78           10.56           10.51           10.15           -0.41
Non-road........................           85.52           46.37           14.91            5.70          -40.67
On-road.........................           26.97            8.54            6.46            6.31           -2.23
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................      146,280.18      138,786.24       67,625.84       37,351.17     -101,435.07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 3--Comparison of 2005, 2008, 2015, and 2022 NOX Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Ohio
                                    Portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta Area
                                            [Washington County, Ohio]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        NOX
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Sector                                                                                 Net change
                                       2005            2008            2015            2022          2005-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................        1,748.86        1,941.94        2,019.31        2,052.47          110.53
EGU.............................       16,137.09       17,168.69        7,505.59        3,364.26      -13,804.43

[[Page 38263]]

 
Area............................          168.44          178.66          183.96          191.01           12.35
Non-road........................          926.75          829.26          530.03          237.54         -591.72
On-road \14\....................        2,687.09        2,247.41        1,200.52          572.25       -1,675.16
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................       21,668.43       22,365.96       11,439.41        6,174.53      -15,948.43
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 4--Comparison of 2007 and 2020 VOC and Ammonia Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Ohio Portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta Area
                                                             [Washington County, Ohio] \14\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                VOC                                           Ammonia
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Sector                                                             Net change                                      Net change
                                                               2007            2020          2007-2020         2007            2020          2007-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................          666.93          653.86          -13.07          567.76          660.88           93.12
Area....................................................        1,215.96        1,249.52           33.56          652.00          668.70           16.72
Non-road................................................          428.74          229.60         -199.14            0.63            0.68            0.05
On-road.................................................        1,207.30          417.13         -790.17           43.64           21.22          -22.42
Fires...................................................           83.68           83.68               0            5.82            5.82               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................        3,602.61        2,633.79         -968.82        1,269.85        1,357.30           87.45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 12.3 micrograms per cubic 
meter ([micro]g/m\3\) (based on 2009-11 air quality data), which is 
well below the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [micro]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 Parkersburg-Marietta area is 9.2 
[micro]g/m\3\. Given that all precursor emissions except ammonia 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 for LADCO was then used to develop temporal factors to 
reflect the impact of average meteorology on livestock emissions.

[[Page 38264]]

    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--Parkersburg-Marietta Area Ammonia and VOC Emissions (tpy) for
                       2007/2008 by Source Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Sector                         Ammonia      VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................................     527.75     623.19
Area..............................................     711.50   1,267.64
Non-road..........................................       0.63     452.83
On-road...........................................      36.43     945.66
Total.............................................   1,276.30   3,289.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 Parkersburg-Marietta 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 providing supplemental rationale for its action, 
published November 12, 2012, which proposed to redesignate the Ohio 
portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area to attainment for the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, to approve the associated maintenance 
plan, and to approve the state's emission inventory. 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 addition, in 
this supplemental notice, EPA is addressing an enhanced 2007/2008 
inventory that now addresses ammonia and VOC emissions, in conjunction 
with the NOX, direct PM2.5 and SO2 
inventories that EPA previously proposed to approve, thus providing 
additional basis for EPA's prior proposal that Ohio has met the 
comprehensive emissions inventory requirements of section 172(c)(3) of 
the CAA for this area. 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 (Pub. L. 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 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.

[[Page 38265]]

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. 2013-15301 Filed 6-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P