[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41752-41768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16658]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

 [EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0337 and EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0462; FRL-9831-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Ohio; Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of the Steubenville-Weirton 
Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Standards for 
Fine Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On April 16, 2012, and May 25, 2012, the Ohio Environmental 
Protection Agency submitted a request under the Clean Air Act (CAA or 
Act) for EPA to grant the redesignation of the Ohio portion of the 
Steubenville-Weirton area (Jefferson County), West Virginia-Ohio 
(Brooke and Hancock counties) (WV-OH), nonattainment area to attainment 
of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour standards for fine particulate 
matter (PM2.5). EPA is proposing to determine that the 
entire Steubenville-Weirton area attains both the 1997 annual and the 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, based on the most recent three 
years of certified air quality data. EPA is proposing to approve, as 
revisions to the Ohio state implementation plan (SIP), the state's plan 
for maintaining the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standard) through 2025 
in the Ohio portion of the area. EPA is proposing to approve 2005 and 
2008 emission inventories for the Ohio portion of the Steubenville-
Weirton area as meeting the comprehensive emissions inventory 
requirement of the CAA. In this proposal, EPA is also proposing to 
approve a supplement to the emission inventories previously submitted 
by the state. 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 requirement of the 
CAA. Ohio's maintenance plan submission includes a motor vehicle 
emission budget (MVEB) for the mobile source contribution of 
PM2.5 and NOX to the Steubenville-Weirton area 
for transportation conformity purposes; EPA is proposing to approve the 
MVEBs for 2015 and 2025 into the Ohio SIP for transportation conformity 
purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 12, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0337 or EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0462, 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 (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section 
(AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted 
during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The 
Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2012-0337 or EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0462. 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

[[Page 41753]]

able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of 
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects 
or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to 
Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 
We recommend that you telephone Carolyn Persoon, Environmental 
Engineer, at (312) 353-8290 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Persoon, Environmental 
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8290, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is 
arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What actions is EPA proposing to take?
III. What is the background for these actions?
IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment?
V. What is EPA's analysis of the state's request?
    1. Attainment
    2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 
110 and Part D and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) 
(Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 107(d)(3)(E)(ii))
    3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and 
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of 
the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and 
Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions (Section 
107(d)(3)(E)(iii))
    4. Ohio Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to 
Section 175A of the CAA (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv))
    5. Insignificance Determination for the Mobile Source 
Contribution to PM2.5 and NOX
    6. 2005 and 2008 Comprehensive Emissions Inventory
    7. Summary of Proposed Actions
VI. What are the effects of EPA's proposed actions?
VII. 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 actions is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to take several actions related to redesignation 
of the Ohio portion of the Steubenville-Weirton area to attainment for 
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition to 
EPA's September 14, 2011, determination that the area meets the NAAQS 
for PM2.5 based on quality-assured, certified 2008-2010 
ambient air monitoring data (76 FR 56641), we are proposing to 
determine that the area continues to attain the NAAQS for 
PM2.5, based on quality-assured and state certified 
monitoring data for 2010-2012. EPA is proposing to find that Ohio meets 
the requirements for redesignation of the Steubenville-Weirton area to 
attainment of the 1997 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS under 
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
    Second, EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's annual PM2.5 
maintenance plan for the Steubenville-Weirton area as a revision to the 
Ohio SIP, including the MVEB for PM2.5 and NOX 
emissions for the mobile source contribution of the Steubenville-
Weirton area.
    Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 and 2008 primary 
PM2.5, NOX and SO2 emissions 
inventories as satisfying the requirement in section 172(c)(3) of the 
CAA for a current, accurate and comprehensive emission inventory. In a 
supplemental submission to EPA on April 29, 2013, Ohio submitted 
ammonia and VOC emissions inventories to supplement the emissions 
inventories that had previously been submitted.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing to grant the request from the State of 
Ohio to change the designation of Jefferson County (the Ohio portion of 
the Steubenville-Weirton area) from nonattainment to attainment of the 
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This action would 
not change the legal designation of the West Virginia portion of the 
area. The West Virginia portion of the area will be addressed in a 
separate rulemaking.

III. What is the background for these actions?

    Fine particulate pollution can be emitted directly from a source 
(primary PM2.5) or formed secondarily through chemical 
reactions in the atmosphere involving precursor pollutants emitted from 
a variety of sources. Sulfates are a type of secondary particulate 
formed from SO2 emissions from power plants and industrial 
facilities. Nitrates, another common type of secondary particulate, are 
formed from combustion emissions of NOX from power plants, 
mobile sources and other combustion sources.
    The first air quality standards for PM2.5 were 
promulgated on July 18, 1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated an annual 
standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) of 
ambient air, based on a three-year average of the annual mean 
PM2.5 concentrations at each monitoring site. In the same 
rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour PM2.5 standard at 65 
[mu]g/m\3\, based on a three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-
hour PM2.5 concentrations at each monitoring site.
    On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, EPA published air quality area 
designations for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard based on air 
quality data for calendar years 2001-2003. In that rulemaking, EPA 
designated the Steubenville-Weirton area as nonattainment for the 1997 
annual PM2.5 standard.
    On October 17, 2006, at 71 FR 61144, EPA retained the annual 
PM2.5 standard at 15 [mu]g/m\3\ (2006 annual 
PM2.5 standard), but revised the 24-hour standard to 35 
[mu]g/m\3\, based again on the three-year average of the annual 98th 
percentile of the 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations. In response 
to legal challenges of the 2006 annual PM2.5

[[Page 41754]]

standard, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit (D.C. Circuit or Court) remanded this standard to EPA for 
further consideration. See American Farm Bureau Federation and National 
Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 
On December 14, 2012, EPA finalized a rule revising the 
PM2.5 annual standard to 12 [mu]g/m\3\ based on current 
scientific evidence regarding the protection of public health. Since 
the Steubenville-Weirton area is designated as nonattainment for the 
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards, today's 
proposed action addresses redesignation to attainment only for these 
standards.
    On September 14, 2011, EPA issued a final determination that the 
entire Steubenville-Weirton area had attained the 1997 PM2.5 
standard by the applicable attainment date (76 FR 56641) and a final 
determination for the 2006 24-hour standard on May 14, 2012 (77 FR 
28264). Based upon our review of complete, quality-assured and 
certified ambient air monitoring data from 2009-2011 and state 
certified data from 2010-2012, we are proposing to determine that the 
area continues to attain the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    In this proposed redesignation, EPA takes into account two 
decisions of the D.C. Circuit. In the first of the two Court decisions, 
the D.C. Circuit, on August 21, 2012, issued EME Homer City Generation, 
L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), which vacated and remanded 
the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and ordered EPA to continue 
administering the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) ``pending . . . 
development of a valid replacement.'' EME Homer City at 38. The D.C. 
Circuit denied all petitions for rehearing on January 24, 2013. In the 
second decision, 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).

IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment?

    The CAA sets forth the requirements for redesignating a 
nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of 
the CAA allows for redesignation provided that: (1) The Administrator 
determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS based on 
current air quality data; (2) the Administrator has fully approved an 
applicable SIP for the area under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the 
Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to 
permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting from 
implementation of the applicable SIP, Federal air pollution control 
regulations and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions; 
(4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the 
area meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the 
state containing the area has met all requirements applicable to the 
area for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the 
CAA.

V. What is EPA's analysis of the State's request?

    EPA is proposing to grant the redesignation of the Ohio portion of 
the Steubenville-Weirton area to attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and is proposing to approve Ohio's 
maintenance plan for the area and other related SIP revisions. The 
bases for these actions follow.

1. Attainment

    As noted above, in a rulemaking published on September 14, 2011, 
EPA determined that the Steubenville-Weirton area had attained the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. The 
basis and effect of the determinations of attainment for both the 1997 
and 2006 standards were discussed in the notices of proposed (76 FR 
28393; 76 FR 61219 respectively) and final (76 FR 56641; 77 FR 28264, 
respectively) rulemaking. The determinations were based on quality-
assured air quality monitoring data for 2007-2009 and 2008-2010 showing 
the area has met the standards.
    In this action, we are proposing to determine that the 
Steubenville-Weirton area continues to attain the 1997 annual and 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based upon the most recent three years 
of complete, certified and quality-assured data. Under EPA's 
regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the annual primary and secondary 
PM2.5 standards are met when the annual arithmetic mean 
concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 
appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ at all relevant 
monitoring sites in the area.
    EPA has reviewed the ambient air quality monitoring data in the 
Steubenville-Weirton area, consistent with the requirements contained 
at 40 CFR part 50. EPA's review focused on data recorded in the EPA Air 
Quality System (AQS) database for the Steubenville-Weirton 
PM2.5 nonattainment area from 2009-2011 and state certified 
data from 2010-2012.
    The Steubenville-Weirton area has five monitors located in 
Jefferson County, Ohio, and Brooke and Hancock counties, West Virginia. 
Based on preliminary calculations using state-certified data for 2010-
2012, the most recent three full years of data, the five monitors had 
design values from 2010-2012 ranging from 12.7 to 11.1 [mu]g/m\3\ for 
the 1997 annual standard, and from 27 to 24 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 2006 24-
hour standard. The monitors in the Steubenville-Weirton area recorded 
complete data in accordance with criteria set forth by EPA in 40 CFR 
part 50, appendix N, where a complete year of air quality data 
comprises four calendar quarters, with each quarter containing data 
with at least 75% capture of the scheduled sampling days. Available 
data are considered to be sufficient for comparison to the NAAQS if 
three consecutive complete years of data exist.

Table 1--The 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Design Values for the Steubenville-Weirton Monitor with Complete
              Data for the 2009-2011 and State Certified 2010-2012 Design Values \1\ in [mu]g/m\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Annual          24-hour         Annual          24-hour
             County                    Site       standard 2009-  standard 2009-  standard 2010-  standard 2010-
                                                       2011            2011            2012            2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson,OH....................       390810017            12.5              28            12.2              27
Jefferson,OH....................       390811001            11.8              24            11.4              24
Brooke, WV......................       540090005            13.0              27            12.7              27
Brooke, WV......................       540090011            11.6              29            11.1              27
Hancock, WV.....................       540291004            11.7              28            11.3              27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As defined in 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix N(1)(c).


[[Page 41755]]

    EPA's review of these monitoring data supports EPA's determination 
that the Steubenville-Weirton area has monitored attainment for each 
time period. Therefore, EPA proposes to determine that the 
Steubenville-Weirton area continues to attain the 1997 annual and 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 standards.

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and 
Part D and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) (Sections 
107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 107(d)(3)(E)(ii))

    We believe that Ohio has met all currently applicable SIP 
requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Ohio portion of the 
Steubenville-Weirton area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP 
requirements). We are also proposing to find that the Ohio SIP meets 
all SIP requirements currently applicable for purposes of redesignation 
under part D of title I of the CAA, in accordance with section 
107(d)(3)(E)(v). We are proposing to find that all applicable 
requirements of the Ohio SIP for purposes of redesignation have been 
met, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As discussed below, 
in this action EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's 2005 and 2008 
emissions inventory as meeting the section 172(c)(3) comprehensive 
emissions inventory requirement. In making these proposed 
determinations, we have ascertained which SIP requirements are 
applicable for purposes of redesignation, and concluded that there are 
SIP measures meeting those requirements and that they are approved or 
will be approved by the time of final rulemaking.
a. Ohio Has Met All Applicable Requirements for Purposes of 
Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of the Area Under Section 110 and 
Part D of the CAA
i. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
    Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the general 
requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the 
implementation plan submitted by a state must have been adopted by the 
state after reasonable public notice and hearing, and, among other 
things, must: Include enforceable emission limitations and other 
control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the 
requirements of the CAA; provide for establishment and operation of 
appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary to 
monitor ambient air quality; provide for implementation of a source 
permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any 
stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; include 
provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) and part D, New Source Review (NSR) permit 
programs; include criteria for stationary source emission control 
measures, monitoring and reporting; include provisions for air quality 
modeling; and provide for public and local agency participation in 
planning and emission control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain measures 
to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air 
quality problems in another state. EPA believes that the requirements 
linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation are the 
relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The 
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to 
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular 
area in the state. Thus, we believe that these requirements should not 
be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of 
redesignation.
    Further, we believe that the other section 110 elements described 
above that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and 
not linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable 
requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to 
these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We 
conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements that are 
linked with a particular area's designation are the relevant measures 
which we may consider in evaluating a redesignation request. This 
approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of 
conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation 
purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See 
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-
53176, October 10, 1996) and (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and 
Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See 
also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour ozone 
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 
2001).
    We have reviewed the Ohio SIP and have concluded that it meets the 
general SIP requirements under section 110 of the CAA to the extent 
they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA has previously 
approved provisions of Ohio's SIP addressing section 110 requirements, 
including provisions addressing particulate matter, at 40 CFR 52.1870, 
respectively). On December 5, 2007, and September 4, 2009, Ohio made 
submittals addressing ``infrastructure SIP'' elements required under 
CAA section 110(a)(2). EPA proposed approval of the December 5, 2007, 
submittal on April 28, 2011, at 76 FR 23757, and published final 
approval on July 14, 2011, at 76 FR 41075. The requirements of section 
110(a)(2), however, are statewide requirements that are not linked to 
the PM2.5 nonattainment status of the Steubenville-Weirton 
area. Therefore, EPA believes that these SIP elements are not 
applicable requirements for purposes of review of the state's 
PM2.5 redesignation request.
ii. Part D Requirements
    EPA is proposing to determine that, upon approval of the base year 
emissions inventories discussed in section V(6) of this rulemaking, the 
Ohio SIP will meet the SIP requirements for the Ohio portion of the 
Steubenville-Weirton area applicable for purposes of redesignation 
under part D of the CAA.
    Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the CAA, sets 
forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all 
nonattainment areas.
(1) Subpart 1
    a. Section 172 Requirements.
    For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the 
applicable section 172 SIP requirements for the Ohio portion of the 
Steubenville-Weirton area are contained in section 172(c)(1)-(9). A 
thorough discussion of the requirements contained in section 172 can be 
found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 
13498, April 16, 1992).
    Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all nonattainment areas to 
provide for the implementation of all Reasonably Achievable Control 
Measures (RACM) as expeditiously as practicable and to provide for 
attainment of the primary NAAQS. EPA interprets this requirement to 
impose a duty on all nonattainment areas to consider all available 
control measures and to adopt and implement such measures as are 
reasonably available for implementation in each area as components of 
the area's attainment demonstration. Because attainment has been 
reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment, 
and section 172(c)(1) requirements are

[[Page 41756]]

no longer considered to be applicable as long as the area continues to 
attain the standard until redesignation. (40 CFR 51.1004(c).)
    The Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirement under section 
172(c)(2) is defined as progress that must be made toward attainment. 
This requirement is not relevant for purposes of redesignation because 
the Steubenville-Weirton area has monitored attainment of the 1997 
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. (General Preamble, 57 
FR 13564). See also 40 CFR 51.918. In addition, because the 
Steubenville-Weirton area has attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS and is no longer subject to an RFP requirement, 
the requirement to submit the section 172(c)(9) contingency measures is 
not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Id.
    Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a 
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. Ohio 
submitted a 2005 (nonattainment year) and 2008 (attainment year) 
emissions inventories along with their redesignation request. As 
discussed below in section V(6), EPA is approving both the 2005 and 
2008 base year inventory as meeting the section 172(c)(3) emissions 
inventory requirement for the Ohio portion of the Steubenville-Weirton 
area.
    Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of 
allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in an 
area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the 
construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources 
anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA approved Ohio's current NSR 
program on January 10, 2003 (68 FR 1366). Nonetheless, since PSD 
requirements will apply after redesignation, the area need not have a 
fully-approved NSR program for purposes of redesignation, provided that 
the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. 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.'' Ohio has demonstrated that 
the Steubenville-Weirton area will be able to maintain the standard 
without part D NSR in effect; therefore, the state need not have a 
fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the 
redesignation request. The state's PSD program will become effective in 
the Steubenville-Weirton area upon redesignation to attainment. See 
rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); 
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); 
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, 
Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).
    Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures 
necessary to provide for attainment of the standard. Because attainment 
has been reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for 
attainment.
    Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable 
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we believe the Ohio 
SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for purposes 
of redesignation.
    (b) Section 176(c)(4)(D) Conformity SIP Requirements.
    The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation 
plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under title 
23 of the U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act (transportation 
conformity), as well as to all other Federally-supported or funded 
projects (general conformity).
    Section 176(c) of the CAA was amended by provisions contained in 
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which was signed into law on August 10, 
2005 (Pub. L. 109-59). Among the changes Congress made to this section 
of the CAA were streamlined requirements for state transportation 
conformity SIPs. State transportation conformity regulations must be 
consistent with Federal conformity regulations and address three 
specific requirements related to consultation, enforcement and 
enforceability. EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the 
transportation conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes 
of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) for two 
reasons.
    First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the 
transportation conformity provisions of the CAA continues to apply to 
areas after redesignation to attainment since such areas would be 
subject to a section 175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA's Federal 
conformity rules require the performance of conformity analyses in the 
absence of Federally-approved state rules. Therefore, because areas are 
subject to the transportation conformity requirements regardless of 
whether they are redesignated to attainment and, because they must 
implement conformity under Federal rules if state rules are not yet 
approved, EPA believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as 
not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. See 
Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this 
interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 62749-62750 (Dec. 7, 1995) 
(Tampa, Florida). Ohio has an approved transportation conformity SIP 
(72 FR 20945). Ohio is in the process of updating its approved 
transportation conformity SIP, and EPA will review its provisions when 
they are submitted.
2. Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding 
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4
a. 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. Although the Court's ruling did not directly address the 2006 
PM2.5 standard, EPA is taking into account the Court's 
position on subpart 4 and the 1997 PM2.5 standard in 
evaluating redesignations for the 2006 standard.
b. Proposal on This Issue
    EPA is proposing to determine that the Court's January 4, 2013, 
decision does not prevent EPA from redesignating the Steubenville-
Weirton area to attainment. 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. EPA's 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, 
even if EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements to the Steubenville-
Weirton redesignation request and disregards the provisions of its 1997 
PM2.5 implementation rule recently remanded by the Court, 
the

[[Page 41757]]

state's request for redesignation of this area still qualifies for 
approval.
i. 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 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 Steubenville-Weirton 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) 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'').\2\ 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.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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 Steubenville-
Weirton redesignation, the subpart 4 requirements were not due at the 
time the state 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 CAA 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 this 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. The state submitted its 
redesignation request on July 5, 2011, but 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 2013.
    To require the state's fully-completed and pending redesignation 
request to comply now with requirements of subpart 4 that the Court 
announced only in January, 2013, 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

[[Page 41758]]

recognized the inequity of this type of retroactive impact in Sierra 
Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),\3\ where it upheld the 
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 the state of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Subpart 4 Requirements and Ohio 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 
Steubenville-Weirton area still qualifies for redesignation to 
attainment. As explained below, EPA believes that the redesignation 
request for the Steubenville-Weirton 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 Steubenville-Weirton 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 \4\ 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). The subpart 1 
requirements include, among other things, provisions for attainment 
demonstrations, RACM, RFP, emissions inventories, and contingency 
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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 Steubenville-Weirton 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. 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)).
    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 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 CAA 
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

[[Page 41759]]

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 and 2006 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.
    Elsewhere in this notice, EPA proposes to determine that the area 
has attained the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards. Under its 
longstanding interpretation, EPA is proposing to determine here that 
the area meets the attainment-related plan requirements of subparts 1 
and 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)1 and section 189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration 
under 189(c)(1), and contingency measure requirements under section 
172(c)(9) are satisfied for purposes of evaluating the redesignation 
request.
iii. 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. EPA in this section 
addresses the Court's opinion with respect to PM2.5 
precursors. 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 its proposed 
redesignation of the Steubenville-Weirton area is consistent with the 
Court's decision on this aspect of subpart 4. 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, (and any similar provisions reflected in the guidance for 
the 2006 PM2.5 standard) 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 
Steubenville-Weirton, EPA believes that doing so is consistent with 
proposing redesignation of the area for the 1997 PM2.5 
standard. The Steubenville-Weirton area has attained both standards 
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\

[[Page 41760]]

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 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 proposal proposes to determine that 
the SIP has met the provisions of section 189(e) with respect to 
ammonia and VOCs as precursors. This proposed determination is based on 
our findings that (1) the Steubenville-Weirton 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 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 Steubenville-Weirton area. See 57 FR 13539-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Steubenville-Weirton area has reduced VOC emissions 
through the implementation of various SIP approved VOC control 
programs and various on-road and nonroad 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 Steubenville-Weirton area has already attained 
the 1997 and 2006 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 
Steubenville-Weirton area. In the context of a redesignation, the area 
has shown that it has attained both standards. Moreover, the state has 
shown and EPA is proposing 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 Steubenville-Weirton 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 
Steubenville-Weirton 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).
b. The Ohio Portion of the Steubenville-Weirton Area Has a Fully 
Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
    Upon final approval of Ohio's comprehensive 2005 and 2008 emissions 
inventories, EPA will have fully approved the Ohio SIP for the Ohio 
portion of the Steubenville-Weirton area under section 110(k) of the 
CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation to 
attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
standard. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a 
redesignation request (See page 3 of the Calcagni Memorandum; 
Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 
989-990 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001)), 
plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a 
redesignation action. See 68 FR 25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the 
passage of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has adopted and submitted, and EPA has 
fully approved, provisions addressing various required SIP elements 
under particulate matter standards. In this action, EPA is proposing to 
approve Ohio's 2005 and 2008 base year emissions inventories for the 
Steubenville-Weirton area as meeting the requirement of section 
172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 standard.
c. Nonattainment Requirements
    Under section 172, states with nonattainment areas must submit 
plans providing for timely attainment and meeting a variety of other 
requirements. On July 16, 2008, Ohio submitted a state-wide attainment 
demonstration for PM2.5, including the Steubenville-Weirton 
area. However, EPA's determination that the area attained the 1997 
PM2.5 annual and 2006 24-hour standards (76 FR 56641; 77 FR 
28264, respectively) suspended the

[[Page 41761]]

requirement to submit certain planning SIPs related to attainment, 
including attainment demonstration requirements, the Reasonably 
Achievable Control Technology (RACT)-RACM requirement of section 
172(c)(1) of the CAA, the RFP and attainment demonstration requirements 
of sections 172(c)(2) and (6) and 182(b)(1) of the CAA and the 
requirement for contingency measures of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA).
    As a result, the only remaining requirement under section 172 to be 
considered is the emissions inventory required under section 172(c)(3). 
As discussed in a later section, EPA is proposing to approve the 
inventory that Ohio submitted as part of its maintenance plan as 
satisfying this requirement.
    No SIP provisions applicable for redesignation of the Ohio portion 
of the Steubenville-Weirton area are currently disapproved, 
conditionally approved or partially approved. If EPA approves Ohio's 
Steubenville-Weirton area PM2.5 emissions inventories as 
proposed, Ohio will have a fully approved SIP for all requirements 
applicable for purposes of redesignation.

3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable 
Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and 
Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other 
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii))

    EPA believes that Ohio has demonstrated that the observed air 
quality improvement in the Steubenville-Weirton area is due to 
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from 
implementation of the SIP, Federal measures and other state-adopted 
measures.
    In making this demonstration, Ohio has calculated the change in 
emissions between 2005, one of the years used to designate the 
Steubenville-Weirton area as nonattainment, and 2008, one of the years 
the Steubenville-Weirton area monitored attainment. The reduction in 
emissions and the corresponding improvement in air quality over this 
time period can be attributed to a number of regulatory control 
measures that the Steubenville-Weirton area and contributing areas have 
implemented in recent years.
a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls Implemented
    The following is a discussion of permanent and enforceable measures 
that have been implemented in the area:
    i. Federal Emission Control Measures
    Reductions in fine particle precursor emissions have occurred 
statewide and in upwind areas as a result of Federal emission control 
measures, with additional emission reductions expected to occur in the 
future. Federal emission control measures include the following.
    Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur 
Standards. These emission control requirements result in lower 
NOX and SO2 emissions from new cars and light 
duty trucks. The Federal rules were phased in between 2004 and 2009. By 
the end of the phase-in period, new vehicles were emitting the 
following percentages less NOX: Passenger cars (light duty 
vehicles)--77%; light duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility 
vehicles--86%; and, larger sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier 
trucks--69% to 95%. EPA expects fleet wide average emissions to come to 
decline by similar percentages as new vehicles replace older vehicles. 
The Tier 2 standards also reduced the sulfur content of gasoline to 30 
parts per million (ppm) beginning in January 2006. Most gasoline sold 
in Ohio prior to January 2006 had a sulfur content of about 500 ppm.
    Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. EPA issued this rule in July 2000. 
This rule includes standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel 
fuel, which went into effect in 2004. A second phase took effect in 
2007 which reduced fine particle emissions from heavy-duty highway 
engines and further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 
15 ppm. The total program is estimated to achieve a 90% reduction in 
direct PM2.5 emissions and a 95% reduction in NOX 
emissions for these new engines using low sulfur diesel, compared to 
existing engines using higher sulfur content diesel. The reduction in 
fuel sulfur content also yielded an immediate reduction in sulfate 
particle emissions from all diesel vehicles.
    Nonroad Diesel Rule. In May 2004, EPA promulgated a new rule for 
large nonroad diesel engines, such as those used construction, 
agriculture and mining equipment, to be phased in between 2008 and 
2014. The rule also reduces the sulfur content in nonroad diesel fuel 
by over 99%. Prior to 2006, nonroad diesel fuel averaged approximately 
3,400 ppm sulfur. This rule limited nonroad diesel sulfur content to 
500 ppm by 2006, with a further reduction to 15 ppm by 2010. The 
combined engine and fuel rules will reduce NOX and PM 
emissions from large nonroad diesel engines by over 90%, compared to 
current nonroad engines using higher sulfur content diesel. It is 
estimated that compliance with this rule will cut NOX 
emissions from nonroad diesel engines by up to 90%. This rule achieved 
some emission reductions by 2008 and was fully implemented by 2010. The 
reduction in fuel sulfur content also yielded an immediate reduction in 
sulfate particle emissions from all diesel vehicles.
    Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engine and Recreational Engine 
Standards. In November 2002 EPA promulgated emission standards for 
groups of previously unregulated nonroad engines. These engines include 
large spark-ignition engines such as those used in forklifts and 
airport ground-service equipment; recreational vehicles using spark-
ignition engines such as off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles 
and snowmobiles; and recreational marine diesel engines. Emission 
standards from large spark-ignition engines were implemented in two 
tiers, with Tier 1 starting in 2004 and Tier 2 in 2007. Recreational 
vehicle emission standards are being phased in from 2006 through 2012. 
Marine Diesel engine standards were phased in from 2006 through 2009. 
With full implementation of the entire nonroad spark-ignition engine 
and recreational engine standards, an 80% reduction in NOX 
expected by 2020. Some of these emission reductions occurred by the 
2008-2010 period used to demonstrate attainment, and additional 
emission reductions will occur during the maintenance period.
i. Control Measures in Contributing Areas
    Given the significance of sulfates and nitrates in the 
Steubenville-Weirton area, the area's air quality is strongly affected 
by regulation of SO2 and NOX emissions from power 
plants.
    NOX SIP Call. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA 
issued a NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and 
22 states to reduce emissions of NOX. Affected states were 
required to comply with Phase I of the SIP Call beginning in 2004, and 
Phase II beginning in 2007. Emission reductions resulting from 
regulations developed in response to the NOX SIP Call are 
permanent and enforceable.
    CAIR. On May 12, 2005, EPA published CAIR, which requires 
significant reductions in emissions of SO2 and 
NOX from electric generating units to limit the interstate 
transport of these pollutants and the ozone and fine particulate matter 
they form in the atmosphere. See 76 FR 70093. The D.C. Circuit 
initially issued an opinion for vacating CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 
531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA 
without vacatur to preserve the

[[Page 41762]]

environmental benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 
F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    EPA recently promulgated CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011), to 
replace CAIR, which has been in place since 2005. See 76 FR 59517.
    On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order addressing 
the status of CSAPR and CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous 
parties seeking a stay of CSAPR pending judicial review. In that order, 
the Court stayed CSAPR pending resolution of the petitions for review 
of that rule in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302 and 
consolidated cases). The Court also indicated that EPA was expected to 
continue to administer CAIR in the interim until judicial review of 
CSAPR was completed.
    On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate 
CSAPR. In that decision, it also ordered EPA to continue administering 
CAIR ``pending the promulgation of a valid replacement.'' EME Homer 
City, 696 F.3d at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all petitions for 
rehearing on January 24, 2013. EPA and other parties have filed 
petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, but those petitions 
have not been acted on to date. Nonetheless, EPA intends to continue to 
act in accordance with the EME Homer City opinion.
    In light of these unique circumstances and for the reasons 
explained below, EPA proposes to approve the redesignation request and 
the related SIP revision for the Ohio portion of the Steubenville-
Weirton area, including Ohio's plan for maintaining attainment of the 
PM2.5 standard. The air quality modeling analysis conducted 
for CSAPR demonstrates that the Steubenville-Weirton area would be able 
to attain the PM2.5 standard even in the absence of either 
CAIR or CSAPR. See ``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 
Document,'' App. B, B-62 to B-134. This modeling is available in the 
docket for this proposed redesignation action.
    In addition, CAIR remains in place and enforceable until 
substituted by a valid replacement rule. Ohio's CAIR SIP was approved 
on September 25, 2009 (74 FR 48857). As a result of CAIR, EPA projected 
that Ohio's 2009 electric generating unit (EGU) emissions of 
NOX would decrease from a baseline of 264,000 tons per year 
(tpy) to 93,000 tpy while in 2010 emissions of SO2 would 
decrease from a baseline of 1,373,000 tpy to 298,000 tpy. And by 2015, 
we projected emissions of NOX would decrease to 83,000 tpy 
while emissions of SO2 would decrease to 208,000 tpy within 
Ohio (http://www.epa.gov/CAIR/oh.html). The monitoring data used to 
demonstrate the area's attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS by the April 2010 attainment deadline was 
impacted by CAIR.
    To the extent that Ohio is relying on CAIR in its maintenance plan, 
the directive from the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City ensures that the 
reductions associated with CAIR will be permanent and enforceable for 
the necessary time period. EPA has been ordered by the Court to develop 
a new rule to address interstate transport to replace CSAPR and the 
opinion makes clear that after promulgating that new rule EPA must 
provide states an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs to implement 
that rule. Thus, CAIR will remain in place until EPA has promulgated a 
final rule through a notice-and-comment rulemaking process, states have 
had an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs, EPA has reviewed the SIPs 
to determine if they can be approved, and EPA has taken action on the 
SIPs, including promulgating a FIP if appropriate. The Court's clear 
instruction to EPA that it must continue to administer CAIR until a 
valid replacement exists provides an additional backstop: By 
definition, any rule that replaces CAIR and meets the Court's direction 
would require upwind states to have SIPs that eliminate significant 
contributions to downwind nonattainment and prevent interference with 
maintenance in downwind areas.
    Further, in vacating CSAPR and requiring EPA to continue 
administering CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that the consequences 
of vacating CAIR ``might be more severe now in light of the reliance 
interests accumulated over the intervening four years.'' EME Homer 
City, 696 F.3d at 38. The accumulated reliance interests include the 
interests of states who reasonably assumed they could rely on 
reductions associated with CAIR which brought certain nonattainment 
areas into attainment with the NAAQS. If EPA were prevented from 
relying on reductions associated with CAIR in redesignation actions, 
states would be forced to impose additional, redundant reductions on 
top of those achieved by CAIR. EPA believes this is precisely the type 
of irrational result the Court sought to avoid by ordering EPA to 
continue administering CAIR. For these reasons also, EPA believes it is 
appropriate to allow states to rely on CAIR, and the existing emissions 
reductions achieved by CAIR, as sufficiently permanent and enforceable 
for purposes such as redesignation. Following promulgation of the 
replacement rule, EPA will review SIPs as appropriate to identify 
whether there are any issues that need to be addressed.
iii. Consent Decrees
    A Federal consent decree with Ohio Edison Company, W.H. Sammis 
Power Station in 2005, and then a 2009 modification, results in 
reductions from 2009 levels of SO2 emissions of 14,000 tpy; 
for NOX, 1,300 tpy; and for PM2.5 700 tpy. In 
2007, a Federal consent decree was signed for the American Electric 
Power Service Corp., which required the Cardinal Power Plant in Ohio to 
install selective catalytic reduction (SCR) controls on three boilers 
in 2009, and flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) for SO2 control 
in 2008 and 2012, and a new PM emissions rate for two boilers in 2009.
b. Emission Reductions
    Ohio developed emissions inventories for NOX, direct 
PM2.5 and SO2 for 2005, one of the years used to 
designate the area as nonattainment, and 2008, one of the years the 
Steubenville-Weirton area monitored attainment of the standard.
    Point source EGU SO2 and NOX emissions were 
derived from EPA's Clean Air Market's acid rain database. These 
emissions reflect Ohio and West Virginia NOX emission 
budgets resulting from EPA's NOX SIP call. The 2008 
emissions from EGUs reflect Ohio's emission caps under CAIR. All other 
point source emissions were obtained from Ohio's source facility 
emissions reporting.
    Area source emissions for the Steubenville-Weirton area for 2005 
were taken from periodic emissions inventories.\12\ These 2005 area 
source emission estimates were extrapolated to 2008. Source growth 
factors were supplied by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium 
(LADCO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Periodic emission inventories are derived by states every 
three years and reported to the EPA. These periodic emission 
inventories are required by the Federal Consolidated Emissions 
Reporting Rule, codified at 40 CFR Subpart A. EPA revised these and 
other emission reporting requirements in a final rule published on 
December 17, 2008, at 73 FR 76539.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonroad mobile source emissions were extrapolated from nonroad 
mobile source emissions reported in EPA's 2005 National Emissions 
Inventory (NEI). Contractors were employed by LADCO to estimate 
emissions for commercial marine vessels and railroads.
    On-road mobile source emissions were calculated using EPA's mobile 
source emission factor model, MOVES2010a, in conjunction with 
transportation model results developed by the Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson

[[Page 41763]]

Metropolitan Planning Commission (BHJ).
    All emissions estimates discussed below were documented in the 
submittal and appendices of Ohio's redesignation request submittal from 
April 16, 2012, and theApril 30, 2013, supplemental submittal. For 
these data and additional emissions inventory data, the reader is 
referred to EPA's digital docket for this rule, http://www.regulations.gov, which includes digital copies of Ohio's submittal.
    Emissions data in tpy for the Ohio portion of the Steubenville-
Weirton area are shown in Tables 2 and 3, below.

     Table 2--Summary of 2005 Emissions for the Ohio Portion of the Steubenville-Weirton Area by Source Type
                                                      [tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  SO2               NOX               PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point (EGU)..............................................        225,594.94          41,046.61          1,307.90
Non-EGU..................................................            849.92           1,991.85            461.57
On-road..................................................             18.18           2,105.85             73.17
Nonroad..................................................             17.31             234.30             24.30
Area.....................................................            110.89             251.38            110.12
MAR......................................................             26.16             317.3               8.07
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
    Total Steubenville-Weirton...........................        226,617.40          45,947.29          1,985.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 3--Summary of 2007 Base Year Emissions of Ammonia and VOCs for the
      Ohio Portion of the Steubenville-Weirton Area by Source Type
                                  [tpy]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Ammonia           VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................           11.53          448.96
Area....................................          204.47          914.14
Nonroad.................................            0.41          480.78
On-road.................................           37.73          940.29
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................          254.14         2784.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 4--Comparison of 2005 Emissions From the Nonattainment Year and 2008 Emissions for an Attainment Year for
                                      the Entire Steubenville-Weirton Area
                                                      [tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Net change (2005-
                                                                  2005              2008              2008)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5.....................................................          2,946.39          2,813.98           -132.41
NOX.......................................................         52,083.06         43,349.31         -8,733.75
SO2.......................................................        229,703.73        138,266.82        -91,436.91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 4 shows that the entire Steubenville-Weirton area shows a 
decrease in direct PM2.5 emissions by 132.41 tons, the area 
reduced NOX emissions by 8,733.75 tons and SO2 
emissions by 91,436.91 tons between 2005, a nonattainment year, and 
2008, an attainment year.
    Based on the information summarized above, Ohio has adequately 
demonstrated that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent 
and enforceable emissions reductions.

4. Ohio Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A 
of the CAA (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv))

    In conjunction with Ohio's request to redesignate the Ohio portion 
of the Steubenville-Weirton nonattainment area to attainment status, 
Ohio has submitted a SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the area through 
2025.
a. What is required in a maintenance plan?
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of a 
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to 
attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued 
attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after EPA 
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after 
redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan which 
demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for ten 
years following the initial ten year maintenance period. To address the 
possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must 
contain contingency measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA 
deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future annual 
PM2.5 violations.
    The Calcagni Memorandum provides additional guidance on the content 
of a maintenance plan. The memorandum states that a maintenance plan 
should address the following items: The attainment emissions 
inventories, a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for the 
ten years of the maintenance period, a commitment to maintain the 
existing monitoring network, factors and procedures to be used for 
verification of continued attainment of the NAAQS and a contingency 
plan to prevent or correct future violations of the NAAQS.

[[Page 41764]]

b. Attainment Inventory
    Ohio developed emissions inventories for NOX, direct 
PM2.5 and SO2 for 2008, one of the years in the 
period during which the Steubenville-Weirton area monitored attainment 
of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, as 
described previously. The attainment levels of emissions for the entire 
area are summarized in Tables 3, above.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
    Along with the redesignation request, Ohio submitted a revision to 
its PM2.5 SIP to include a maintenance plan for the 
Steubenville-Weirton area, as required by section 175A of the CAA. 
Section 175A requires a State seeking redesignation to attainment to 
submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in 
the area ``for at least 10 years after the redesignation.'' EPA has 
interpreted this as a showing of maintenance ``for a period of ten 
years following redesignation.'' Calcagni Memorandum, p. 9. Where the 
emissions inventory method of showing maintenance is used, its purpose 
is to show that emissions during the maintenance period will not 
increase over the attainment year inventory. Calcagni Memorandum, pp. 
9-10.
    Ohio's submission uses emissions inventory projections for the 
years 2015 and 2025 to demonstrate maintenance for the entire 
Steubenville-Weirton area. The projected emissions were estimated by 
Ohio, with assistance from LADCO and BHJ using the MOVES2010a model. 
Projection modeling of inventory emissions was done for the 2015 
interim year emissions using estimates based on the 2009 and 2018 LADCO 
modeling inventory, using LADCO's growth factors, for all sectors. The 
2025 maintenance year is based on emissions estimates from the 2018 
LADCO modeling. Table 4 shows the 2008 attainment base year emission 
estimates and the 2015 and 2025 emission projections for the entire 
Steubenville-Weirton area that Ohio provided in its April 16, 2012, 
submission.

    Table 4--Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2025 NOX, Direct PM2.5 and SO2 Emission Totals (tpy) for the Entire
                                            Steubenville-Weirton Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              SO2                        NOX                      PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 (baseline)..................  138,266.82...............  43,349.31...............  2,813.98.
2015.............................  74,806.60................  25,263.36...............  2,740.52.
2025.............................  47,445.58................  17,533.17...............  2,698.00.
Change 2008-2025.................  -90,821.24...............  -25,816.14..............  -115.98.
                                   66% decrease.............  60% decrease............  4% decrease.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 4 shows that the entire Steubenville-Weirton area reduced 
NOX emissions by 25,816.14 tpy between 2008 and the 
maintenance projection to 2025, direct PM2.5 emissions by 
115.98 tpy, and reduced SO2 emissions by 90,821.24 tpy 
between 2008 and 2025.
Maintenance Plan Evaluation of Ammonia and VOCs
    With regard to the redesignation of the Steubenville-Weirton 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 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 and 2006 PM2.5 standard and 
that the state has shown that attainment of those standards is due to 
permanent and enforceable emission reductions.
    EPA proposes 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 and 2006 
PM2.5 standard in the Steubenville-Weirton 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 
Steubenville-Weirton 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 Steubenville-Weirton area are 
very low, estimated to be less than 500 tpy. See Table 5 below. This 
amount of ammonia emissions appears 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 there is a projected reduction 
of NOX emissions by 25,816.14 tpy between 2008 and the 
maintenance projection to 2025, direct PM2.5 emissions of 
115.98 tpy, and reduced SO2 emissions of 90,821.24 tpy 
between 2008 and 2025. See Table 4 above. In addition, emissions 
inventories used in EPA's regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS show that VOC emissions are projected to 
decrease by 720 tpy, respectively between 2007 and 2020. Ammonia 
emissions are projected to increase slightly between 2007 and 2020 by 
162 tpy, the overall emissions reductions projected in direct 
PM2.5, SO2, and NOX would be 
sufficient to offset any increases. See Table 5 below. While the RIA 
emissions inventories are only projected out to 2020, there is no 
reason to believe that this downward trend would not continue through 
2025. Given that the Steubenville-Weirton area is already attaining the 
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS even with the 
current level of emissions from sources in the area, the downward trend 
of emissions inventories would be consistent with continued attainment. 
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 2025, the overall emissions reductions projected in 
direct PM2.5, SO2, and NOX

[[Page 41765]]

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 or the 2006 
PM2.5 standard during the maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ These emissions estimates were taken from the emissions 
inventories developed for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS which can be found in the docket.

Table 5--Comparison of 2007 and 2020 VOC and Ammonia Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Steubenville-
                                                Weirton Area \13\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Ammonia                                  VOCs
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Net change                             Net change
                                        2007         2020      2007-2020       2007         2020      2007-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................        11.64       188.87       177.24       460.57       657.02       196.45
Area..............................       195.94       196.65         0.71       858.74       875.13        16.40
Nonroad...........................         0.41         0.45         0.04       464.43       237.02      -227.41
On-road...........................        33.85        18.53       -15.31     1,096.33       389.98      -706.35
Fires.............................         0.97         0.97         0.00        14.00        14.00         0.00
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................       242.81       405.48       162.67     2,894.06     2,173.15      -720.91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 12.5 and 29 [mu]g/m\3\ (based 
on 2009-11 air quality data), which are well below the 1997 annual and 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 and 35 [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 continue to decline through 2020. In the RIA analysis, the 
highest 2020 modeled design value for the Steubenville-Weirton area is 
9.2 [mu]g/m\3\. Given that precursor emissions are projected to 
decrease through 2025, it is reasonable to conclude that monitored 
PM2.5 levels in this area will also continue to decrease 
through 2025.
    Thus, EPA believes that there is ample justification to conclude 
that the Steubenville-Weirton 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 
notice, EPA proposes to approve the state's maintenance plan and its 
request to redesignate the Steubenville-Weirton area to attainment for 
the PM2.5 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour NAAQS.
    As described in section V(3)(b) of this action, the result of 
Federal rules and consent decree actions, demonstrate that the 
reductions from power plants in the Steubenville-Weirton area have 
occurred and are mandated to continue to occur in 2025 and beyond. Thus 
the emissions inventories set forth in Table 4 show that the area will 
continue to maintain the annual PM2.5 standard during the 
maintenance period at least through 2025. These consent decree actions, 
along with other consent decrees in the area, are significant controls 
of NOX and SO2, along with implementation of 
Ohio's SIP approved CAIR controls for the area.
    Based on the information summarized above, Ohio has adequately 
demonstrated maintenance of the PM2.5 standard in this area 
for a period extending in excess of ten years from expected final 
action on Ohio's redesignation request.
d. Monitoring Network
    Ohio's plan includes a commitment to continue working with West 
Virginia to operate its EPA-approved monitoring network, as necessary 
to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. Ohio currently 
operates two PM2.5 monitors in the Ohio portion of the 
Steubenville-Weirton area. West Virginia currently operates three 
monitors in their portion of the Steubenville-Weirton area.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
    Ohio remains obligated to continue to quality-assure monitoring 
data and enter all data into the Air Quality System in accordance with 
Federal guidelines. Ohio will use these data, supplemented with 
additional information as necessary, to assure that the area continues 
to attain the standard. Ohio will also continue to develop and submit 
periodic emission inventories as required by the Federal Consolidated 
Emissions Reporting Rule (67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002) to track future 
levels of emissions. Both of these actions will help to verify 
continued attainment in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
f. Contingency Plan
    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or 
prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation 
of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a 
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems 
necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of 
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should 
identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and 
procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures, 
and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also 
identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the 
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The 
maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will 
implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant(s) that 
were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to 
attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA. Ohio's contingency measures 
include a Warning Level Response and an Action Level Response. An 
initial Warning Level Response is triggered when the average weighted 
annual mean for one year exceeds 15.5 [mu]g/m\3\. A warning level 
response for the 2006 24-hour standard shall be prompted whenever the 
98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentration of 35.5 [mu]g/
m\3\ occurs in a single calendar year within the maintenance area. In 
that case, a study will be conducted to determine if the emissions 
trends show increases; if action is necessary to reverse emissions 
increases, Ohio will follow the same procedures for control selection 
and

[[Page 41766]]

implementation as for an Action Level Response.
    The Action Level Response will be prompted by any one of the 
following: A Warning Level Response study that shows emissions 
increases, a weighted annual mean for the 1997 annual standard, or a 
98th percentile for the 24-hour standard, over a two-year period that 
exceeds the standard or a violation of the standard. If an Action Level 
Response is triggered, Ohio will adopt and implement appropriate 
control measures within 12 months from the end of the year in which 
monitored air quality triggering a response occurs.
    Ohio's candidate contingency measures include the following:
    i. Diesel emission reduction strategies;
    ii. Alternative fuels;
    iii. Statewide NOX RACT rules;
    iv. Impact crushers at recycle scrap yards using wet suppression;
    v. Tighter emission offsets for new and modified major sources;
    vi. ICI Boilers--SO2 and NOX controls;
    vii. Emission controls for:
    a. Process heaters;
    b. EGUS;
    c. Internal combustion engines;
    d. Combustion turbines;
    e. Other sources > 100 TPY;
    f. Fleet vehicles;
    g. Concrete manufacturers and;
    h. Aggregate processing plants.
    Ohio further commits to conduct ongoing review of its data, and if 
monitored concentrations or emissions are trending upward, Ohio commits 
to take appropriate steps to avoid a violation if possible. Ohio 
commits to continue implementing SIP requirements upon and after 
redesignation.
    EPA believes that Ohio's contingency measures, as well as the 
commitment to continue implementing any SIP requirements, satisfy the 
pertinent requirements of section 175A(d).
    As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Ohio commits to submit 
to the EPA an updated PM2.5 maintenance plan eight years 
after redesignation of the Steubenville-Weirton area to cover an 
additional ten year period beyond the initial ten year maintenance 
period. As required by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio has also committed 
to retain the PM2.5 control measures contained in the SIP 
prior to redesignation.
    For all of the reasons set forth above, EPA is proposing to approve 
Ohio's 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance plan 
for the Steubenville-Weirton area as meeting the requirements of CAA 
section 175A.

5. Insignificance Determination for the Mobile Source Contribution to 
PM2.5 and NOX

    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation plans and 
transportation improvement programs (TIPs) must conform to applicable 
SIP goals. This means that such actions will not: (1) Cause or 
contribute to violations of a NAAQS; (2) worsen the severity of an 
existing violation; or (3) delay timely attainment of a NAAQS or any 
interim milestone. Actions involving Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are 
subject to the Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR part 93 subpart 
A). Under this rule, MPOs in nonattainment and maintenance areas 
coordinate with state air quality agencies and Federal transportation 
agencies (EPA, FHWA and FTA) to demonstrate that their metropolitan 
transportation plans (``plans'') and TIPs conform to applicable SIPs. 
This is typically determined by showing that estimated emissions from 
existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal 
to the motor vehicle emissions budgets contained in a SIP.
    For budgets to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, EPA's 
adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). However, the Transportation 
Conformity Rule at 40 CFR 93.109(m) allows areas to forgo establishment 
of a budget(s) where it is demonstrated that regional motor vehicle 
emissions for a particular pollutant or precursor pollutant are an 
insignificant contributor to the air quality problem in the area. The 
general criteria for insignificance determinations per 40 CFR 93.109(m) 
are based on a number of factors, including (1) The percentage of motor 
vehicle emissions in context of the total SIP inventory; (2) the 
current state of air quality as determined by monitoring data for that 
NAAQS; (3) the absence of SIP motor vehicle control measures; and (4) 
historical trends and future projections of the growth of motor vehicle 
emissions in the area.
    The redesignation request that Ohio submitted for its portion of 
the Steubenville-Weirton area includes a request for EPA to make an 
insignificance finding for NOX and directly emitted 
PM2.5 for the Steubenville-Weirton PM2.5 
nonattainment area. Pursuant to sections 93.118(e)(4) and 93.109(k) of 
the Transportation Conformity Rule, as part of the review of Ohio's 
redesignation request and maintenance plan submittal, we have reviewed 
Ohio's justification for the finding of insignificance for direct 
PM2.5 and also for NOX as a precursor of 
PM2.5 in the Ohio portion of the Steubenville-Weirton area. 
EPA agrees with Ohio's conclusion that on-road emissions of 
PM2.5 and NOX in the Steubenville-Weirton area, 
are insignificant for transportation conformity purposes. We base our 
finding on several factors:
     The fact that the area has been determined to attain the 
annual PM2.5 standard, and continues to attain the standard 
with the most recent three years of complete, quality-assured 
monitoring data;
     The absence of local on-road control measures; and
     The continued downward trend, historically and in modeled 
future projections, of on-road NOX and PM2.5 
emissions from 2005-2025.
    Consistent with EPA's adequacy review of Ohio's redesignation 
request and maintenance plan and the Agency's thorough review of the 
entire SIP submission, EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's 
insignificance determination for the on-road motor vehicle contribution 
of NOX and PM2.5 emissions to the overall 
PM2.5 emissions in the Steubenville-Weirton PM2.5 
area.
    Because EPA finds that Ohio's submitted maintenance plan and 
redesignation request meets the criteria in the conformity rule for an 
insignificance finding for motor vehicle emissions of NOX 
and PM2.5 in the Steubenville-Weirton PM2.5 area, 
it is not necessary to establish PM2.5 and NOX 
budgets for the Steubenville-Weirton PM2.5 area. That is, 
EPA finds that the submittal demonstrates that, for NOX and 
PM2.5, regional motor vehicle emissions are an insignificant 
contributor to the annual PM2.5 air quality problem in the 
combined Steubenville-Weirton area. Motor vehicle emissions in general, 
for the maintenance period of 2015 and 2025, are low and declining (See 
appendix C in Ohio submittal found in the docket) in the Ohio portion 
of the area, and in the combined Steubenville-Weirton area overall. In 
2015 the percentage contribution to emissions for the combined 
Steubenville-Weirton area from motor vehicles is 4.67% and 1.66% for 
NOX and PM2.5, respectively. In 2025, motor 
vehicles in the combined Steubenville-Weirton area are projected to 
contribute only 2.49% and 0.92% of emissions for NOX, and 
PM2.5, respectively, with the decrease due to Federal 
regulations on motor vehicle rules such as Heavy-duty Highway Vehicle 
standards and Tier 2 vehicle and fuel standards. Also, there have been 
no SIP requirements for motor vehicle control measures for the Ohio

[[Page 41767]]

portion of the area and it is unlikely that motor vehicle control 
measures will be implemented for PM2.5 in this area in the 
future.
    Finally, as described above, the area has attained the 1997 annual 
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and we are proposing to approve 
the maintenance plan and redesignation request for the Ohio portion of 
the area, with no requirement for motor vehicle emissions budgets for 
PM2.5 and NOX for the Steubenville-Weirton area 
in order to maintain the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS.
    With regard to on-road emissions of SO2, volatile 
organic compounds and ammonia, Ohio did not provide emission budgets 
(or an insignificance demonstration) because it concluded, consistent 
with EPA's presumptions regarding these PM2.5 precursors (70 
FR 24280), that emissions of these precursors from motor vehicles are 
not significant contributors to the area's PM2.5 air quality 
problem. EPA issued conformity regulations to implement the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS in July 2004 and May 2005 (69 FR 40004, July 1, 
2004 and 70 FR 24280, May 6, 2005, respectively). Those actions were 
not part of the final rule recently remanded to EPA by the Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia in NRDC v. EPA, No. 08-1250 (Jan. 
4, 2013), in which the Court remanded to EPA the implementation rule 
for the PM2.5 NAAQS because it concluded that EPA must 
implement that NAAQS pursuant to the PM-specific implementation 
provisions of subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of the CAA, rather than 
solely under the general provisions of subpart 1.
    EPA is proposing to approve the inventory and the findings of 
insignificant contribution by motor vehicles, resulting in no proposed 
motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Ohio portion of the 
Steubenville-Weirton area for 2015 and 2025 projected maintenance 
years.

6. 2005 and 2008 Comprehensive Emissions Inventory

    As discussed above, section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires areas to 
submit a comprehensive emissions inventory. Ohio submitted a 2005 base 
year emissions inventories that meets this requirement. Emissions 
contained in the submittals cover the general source categories of 
point sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and nonroad mobile 
sources. Discussion on the methodology used to compile the emission 
inventories can be found in section V(3)(b) as well as the docket.
    All emissions discussed in Table 3 were documented in the submittal 
and the appendices of Ohio's redesignation request submittal. EPA has 
reviewed Ohio's documentation of the emissions inventory techniques and 
data sources used for the derivation of the 2005 and 2008 emissions 
estimates and has found that Ohio has thoroughly documented the 
derivation of these emissions inventories. The submittal from the state 
shows that the 2005 and 2008 emissions inventory are currently the most 
complete emissions inventories for PM2.5 and 
PM2.5 precursors in the Steubenville-Weirton area. Based 
upon EPA's review, we propose to find that the 2005 and 2008 emissions 
inventories are as complete and accurate as possible given the input 
data available to the Ohio, and we are proposing to approve them under 
CAA section 172(c)(3).

7. Summary of Proposed Actions

    EPA has previously determined that the Steubenville-Weirton area 
has attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 
EPA is proposing to determine that the entire Steubenville-Weirton area 
continues to attain the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
standard using the latest three years of certified, quality-assured 
data, and that the Ohio portion of the area has met the requirements 
for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is 
proposing to approve the request from Ohio to change the legal 
designation of the Ohio portion of the Steubenville-Weirton area from 
nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's 
PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Steubenville-Weirton area as 
a revision to the Ohio SIP because the plan meets the requirements of 
section 175A of the CAA. EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 and 2008 
emissions inventories for primary PM2.5, NOX, and 
SO2, documented in Ohio's April 16, 2012, submittal as 
satisfying the requirement in section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for a 
comprehensive, current emission inventory. Finally, for transportation 
conformity purposes EPA is also proposing to approve Ohio's 
determination that on-road emissions of PM2.5 and 
NOX are insignificant contributors to PM2.5 
concentrations in the area.

VI. What are the effects of EPA's proposed actions?

    If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change 
the official designation of the Ohio portion of the Steubenville-
Weirton area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment. If 
finalized, EPA's proposal would approve as a revision to the Ohio SIP 
for the Steubenville-Weirton area, the maintenance plan for the 1997 
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard as well as the 2005 
and 2008 emissions inventories included with the redesignation request.

VII. 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 Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to 
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, these actions:
     Are not a ''significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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);

[[Page 41768]]

     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 rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects

40 CFR part 52

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

40 CFR part 81

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, National Parks, 
Wilderness.

    Dated: June 25, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-16658 Filed 7-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P