[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76987-76992]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30348]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0980; FRL-9903-57]

Mandipropamid; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances in or on multiple
commodities and removes several established tolerances for residues of
mandipropamid, which are identified and discussed later in this
document. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 20, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 18, 2014,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0980, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0980 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
February 18, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0980, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 27, 2013 (78 FR 13295) (FRL-
9380-2), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
2E8126) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W., Princeton, NJ
08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.637 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide mandipropamid, 4-
chloro-N-[2-[3-methoxy-4-(2-propynyloxy)phenyl]ethyl]-alpha-(2-
propynyloxy)-benzeneacetamide, in or on basil, dried at 200 parts per
million (ppm); basil, fresh at 30 ppm; bean, succulent at 0.90 ppm;
cowpea, forage at 15 ppm; fruit, small, vine climbing, subgroup 13-07F,
except fuzzy kiwifruit at 2.0 ppm; ginseng at 0.3 ppm; onion, bulb,
subgroup 3-07A at 0.1 ppm; onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 7.0 ppm; and
vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 1.0 ppm. The petition additionally
requested to remove the established tolerances in or on grape at 1.4
ppm; onion, dry bulb at 0.05 ppm; onion, green at 4 ppm; okra at 1.0
ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 1.0 ppm, upon establishment of
the associated proposed tolerances. That document referenced a summary
of the petition prepared on behalf of IR-4 by Syngenta Crop Protection,
the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
determined that the proposed tolerances should not be established on
succulent bean or cowpea forage, and that a tolerance should be
established on snap bean. The Agency has also determined that the
proposed tolerances in or on small vine climbing fruit subgroup 13-07F,
bulb onion subgroup 3-07A and green onion subgroup 3-07B should be
revised. EPA has also revised the commodity terminology for fresh and
dried basil and determined that the tolerance expression should be
revised for all commodities. Finally, EPA determined that the time-
limited tolerance on fresh basil should be removed. The reasons for
these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for mandipropamid including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with mandipropamid
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.

    Subchronic and chronic studies indicate that the liver is the
primary target organ for mandipropamid. Liver effects were identified
in subchronic studies with rats, mice, and dogs. Liver effects included
increased plasma albumin, total protein, cholesterol, and gamma-
glutamyl transferase, as well as periportal hypertrophy in rats;
increased liver enzymes, increased pigment in hepatocytes and Kupffer
cells, and centrilobular hepatocyte vacuolation in dogs; increased
eosinophilia in rats and mice; and increased liver weights in rats,
mice and dogs. In the chronic dog study, increases in microscopic
pigment in the liver and increased liver enzymes were observed. No
liver effects were observed in chronic rat and mouse studies up to the
highest doses tested. Instead, nephrotoxicity was observed in the
chronic rat study and decreased body weight and food utilization was
observed in the chronic mouse study. The findings of liver toxicity and
nephrotoxicity are consistent with the results from metabolism studies
where the tissues with the highest levels of radioactivity were the
liver followed by the kidney.
    No evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in the acute or
subchronic neurotoxicity screening battery. No systemic or dermal
toxicity was observed following dermal exposure for 28 days, up to the
limit dose. No immunotoxicity was observed up to the highest dose
tested in the mouse immunotoxicity study.
    No evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility
was seen in developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits or in a
2-generation reproduction study in rats. The only effects observed in
fetuses or pups were in the 2-generation reproduction study, where
decreased pup body weight was observed in the presence of maternal
toxicity (decreased body weight, body weight gain, and food
utilization). In addition, there was a delay in preputial separation in
F1 males which was considered to be the result of lower body weights.
    There was no evidence of tumors in the carcinogenicity study in
mice or in the chronic/carcinogenicity study in rats and there was no
evidence that mandipropamid was mutagenic or clastogenic. Therefore,
mandipropamid is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans.''
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by mandipropamid as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document, ``Mandipropamid: Human Health Risk
Assessment For New Uses On Basil, Ginseng and Snap Beans, as Well as
Crop Group Expansions for Fruiting Vegetable; Small Fruit, Vine
Climbing, Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit; and Bulb Onion and Green Onion
Subgroups.'' at pages 33-38 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0980.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified.
Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to
calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a population-
adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe margin of
exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any
amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the
adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for mandipropamid used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

 Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Mandipropamid for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Point of departure and
         Exposure/scenario             uncertainty/safety    RfD, PAD, LOC for risk    Study and toxicological
                                             factors               assessment                  effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population    No endpoint attributable to a single exposure was identified.
 including infants and children and
 females 13-49 years old).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)..  NOAEL=5 mg/kg/day.....  Chronic RfD = 0.05 mg/  Chronic Toxicity Study,
                                     UFA = 10x.............   kg/day.                 Dogs LOAEL = 40 mg/kg/day
                                     UFH = 10x.............  cPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/day.   based on increased
                                     FQPA SF = 1x..........                           incidence and severity of
                                                                                microscopic pigment in the
                                                                                liver and increased
                                                                                alkaline phosphatase
                                                                                activity in both sexes as
                                                                                well as increased alanine
                                                                                aminotransferase activity
                                                                                in males.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)..  Classified as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. Mg/kg/day = milligrams/kilogram/day. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population
  adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation
  from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human
  population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to mandipropamid, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing mandipropamid
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.637. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
mandipropamid in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern

occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects
were identified in the toxicological studies for mandipropamid;
therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is
unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the
Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 3.16, which uses
food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, ``What We
Eat in America'' (NHANES/WWEIA) from 2003 through 2008. As to residue
levels in food, EPA used tolerance-level residues with the exception of
subgroups 13-07F, 3-07A, and 3-07B, for which EPA used residue levels
higher than the tolerance levels being established here; and tuberous
and corm vegetable subgroup 1C, which was assessed at 0.026 ppm, in
order to account for the SYN 500003 metabolite for this commodity. EPA
assessed tolerances for subgroups 13-07F, 3-07A, and 3-07B using levels
that were proposed by the petitioner and that were harmonized with
Codex maximum residue levels. However, for reasons discussed in Unit
IV.B., EPA is harmonizing these tolerance levels with the lower
Canadian maximum residue levels (MRLs). The Agency also assumed 100
percent crop treated (PCT) estimates for all commodities and utilized
default DEEM-FCID TM (ver. 7.81) processing factors, with
the exception of chemical-specific processing factors for grape wine
and sherry.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that mandipropamid does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment
for mandipropamid. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed
for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for mandipropamid in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of mandipropamid. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of mandipropamid for chronic
exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 9.0 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 79 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 79 ppb was used to assess
the contribution from drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Mandipropamid is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA has not found
mandipropamid to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and mandipropamid does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that mandipropamid does
not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http: //www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision,
EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support
the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There were no treatment-
related effects observed in dams or fetuses in the developmental
toxicity studies in rats or rabbits up to the limit dose of 1,000
milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day). In the rat 2-generation
reproductive study, decreased pup weight occurred only in the presence
of comparable maternal toxicity (decreased body weight, body weight
gain, and food utilization). Therefore, there is no increased
quantitative or qualitative susceptibility to rat or rabbit offspring
exposed in utero and/or postnatally to mandipropamid, and there are no
residual uncertainties with respect to prenatal or postnatal exposure.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for mandipropamid is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that mandipropamid is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that mandipropamid results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessment was performed based on
100 PCT and tolerance-level residues for all commodities, with the
exception of tuberous and corm vegetable subgroup 1C, which was
assessed for the tolerance level plus the metabolite. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to mandipropamid in drinking water.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by mandipropamid.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure

estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear
cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring
cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-,
and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated
aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs
to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
mandipropamid is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
mandipropamid from food and water will utilize 46% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for mandipropamid.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level).
    Short- and intermediate-term adverse effects were identified;
however, mandipropamid is not registered for any use patterns that
would result in short- or intermediate-term residential exposures.
Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- and
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure.
Because there is no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure
and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the
appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the
POD used to assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short-
and intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term
risk for mandipropamid.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, mandipropamid is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to mandipropamid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, a high performance liquid
chromatography with tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC/MS/MS), is
available to enforce the tolerance expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international MRLs established by the Codex Alimentarius
Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex
Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it
is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting
organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party.
EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL;
however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons
for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has established MRLs for mandipropamid in or on bell and
nonbell pepper at 1 ppm, bulb onion at 0.1 ppm, grape at 2 ppm, and
spring onions at 7.0 ppm. The tolerances are harmonized with the U.S.
tolerances established in or on fruiting vegetable group 8-10
(including pepper) at 1.0 ppm. However, the tolerances in or on small
vine climbing fruit except fuzzy kiwifruit subgroup 13-07F (including
grape) at 1.4 ppm, bulb onion subgroup 3-07A at 0.05 ppm, and green
onion subgroup 3-07B at 4 ppm are not harmonized with associated Codex
MRLs on these commodities because it has been determined that the major
export market for these commodities is Canada. Therefore, in order to
maintain harmonization of U.S. tolerances and Canadian MRLs for these
commodities, EPA is establishing these subgroup tolerances at the
levels that align with the Canadian MRLs. There are no Codex MRLs on
the other commodities associated with this action.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    Based on the data supporting the petition, EPA has revised basil,
fresh to basil, fresh leaves and basil, dried to basil, dried leaves in
order to correct the commodity terminology. EPA also determined that
the following proposed tolerances should be amended in order to
harmonize with Canadian MRLs on associated commodities: Small vine
climbing fruit except fuzzy kiwifruit subgroup 13-07F from 2.0 ppm to
1.4 ppm; bulb onion subgroup 3-07A from 0.1 ppm to 0.05 ppm; and green
onion subgroup 3-07B from 7.0 ppm to 4.0 ppm. Additionally, while EPA
was petitioned for a tolerance on succulent bean, no field trial data
were conducted on a succulent shelled bean cultivar in order to support
the tolerance. Instead, the petitioner submitted snap bean data, which
EPA determined is sufficient to support a tolerance of mandipropamid in
or on bean, snap at 0.90 ppm. Snap beans are a subset of the larger
succulent shelled bean definition, as defined in 40 CFR 180.1(g).
Additionally, the Agency determined that the proposed tolerance in or
on cowpea, forage cannot be established at this time because the use
lacks a validated livestock analytical enforcement method for residues
of mandipropamid. EPA also determined that the time-limited tolerance
in or on fresh basil at 20 ppm should be removed, as it will be
superseded by a permanent tolerance on fresh basil leaves at 30 ppm.
Finally, the Agency has revised the tolerance expression to clarify:
    1. That, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance
covers metabolites and degradates of mandipropamid not specifically
mentioned; and
    2. That compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be
determined by measuring only mandipropamid.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
mandipropamid, 4-chloro-N-[2-[3-methoxy-4-(2-propynyloxy)phenyl]ethyl]-
[alpha]-(2-propynyloxy)benzeneacetamide, in or on basil, dried leaves
at 200 ppm; basil, fresh leaves at 30 ppm; bean, snap at 0.90 ppm;
fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at
1.4 ppm; ginseng at 0.30 ppm; onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A at 0.05 ppm;
onion, green, subgroup 3-07B at 4.0 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, group
8-10 at 1.0 ppm. This regulation additionally removes the established
tolerances in or on grape at 1.4 ppm; onion, dry bulb at 0.05 ppm;
onion, green at 4 ppm; okra

at 1.0 ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 1.0 ppm. Finally, this
regulation removes the time-limited tolerance in or on basil, fresh at
20 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 16, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.637:
0
a. Revise the introductory text in paragraph (a).
0
b. Remove ``Grape'', ``Okra'', ``Onion, dry bulb'', ``Onion green'',
and ``Vegetable, fruiting, group 8'' from the table in paragraph (a).
0
c. Add ``Basil, dried leaves'', ``Basil, fresh leaves'', ``Bean,
snap'', ``Fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup
13-07F'', ``Ginseng'', ``Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A'', ``Onion, green,
subgroup 3-07B'', and ``Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10'' to the table
in paragraph (a).
0
d. Revise the introductory text in paragraph (b).
0
e. Remove ``Basil, fresh'' from the table in paragraph (b).
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  180.637  Mandipropamid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of
mandipropamid, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities listed in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only
mandipropamid (4-chloro-N-[2-[3-methoxy-4-(2-propynyloxy)phenyl]ethyl]-
[alpha]-(2-propynyloxy)benzeneacetamide) in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basil, dried leaves.....................................             200
Basil, fresh leaves.....................................              30
Bean, snap..............................................            0.90

                                * * * * *
Fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,                  1.4
 subgroup 13-07F........................................
Ginseng.................................................            0.30

                                * * * * *
Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A.............................            0.05
Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B............................             4.0

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10.........................             1.0

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

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances are
established for residues of mandipropamid, including its metabolites
and degradates, in or on the commodities listed in the table below
resulting from use of the pesticide pursuant to FFIFRA section 18
emergency exemptions. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified
below is to be determined by measuring only mandipropamid (4-chloro-N-
[2-[3-methoxy-4-(2-propynyloxy)phenyl]ethyl]-[alpha]-(2-
propynyloxy)benzeneacetamide) in or on the commodity. The tolerances
expire on the date specified in the table.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-30348 Filed 12-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 116)]
[Notices]
[Page 33477-33478]
[DOCID:fr18jn07-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-481-000]

Saltville Gas Storage Company L.L.C.; Notice of Proposed Changes
in FERC Gas Tariff

June 11, 2007.
    Take notice that on June 6, 2007, Saltville Gas Storage Company
L.L.C. (Saltville) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix B to the
filing, to become effective July 7, 2007.
    Saltville states that the purpose of this filing is to make
miscellaneous clean-up changes to various sections of the Saltville
Tariff.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-11645 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25608-25615]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11748]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0644; FRL-9978-87-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Cleveland, PM2.5 Attainment Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On October 14, 2016, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA) submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission for the
2012 Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (``NAAQS'' or ``standards'') for the Cleveland nonattainment
area. As required by the Clean Air Act (CAA), OEPA developed an
attainment plan to address the Cleveland nonattainment area and
evaluate the area's ability to attain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
by the ``Moderate'' attainment date of December 31, 2021. The SIP
submission addresses specific requirements as outlined in the CAA
including: Attainment demonstration; reasonable available control
measure (RACM) analysis; emissions inventory requirements; reasonable
further progress (RFP) with quantitative milestones; and nonattainment
new source review (NNSR). Additionally, the SIP submission includes
optional PM2.5 precursor demonstrations for NNSR and
attainment planning purposes. EPA has evaluated the SIP submission and
is proposing to approve portions of the submission as meeting the
applicable CAA requirements for RACM, emissions inventory, attainment
demonstration modeling, and precursor insignificance demonstrations for
NNSR and attainment planning purposes. EPA is not acting on the other
elements of the submission, including reasonable further progress
(RFP), with quantitative milestones, and motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEBs).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2016-0644 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

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,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

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

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action
    A. History of the PM2.5 NAAQS
    B. CAA PM2.5 Moderate Area Nonattainment SIP
Requirements
II. EPA's Evaluation of Submission
III. EPA's Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action

A. History of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

    On December 15, 2012, EPA promulgated the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, including a revision of the annual standard to 12.0 micrograms
per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) based on a 3-year average of annual
mean PM2.5 concentrations, and maintaining the current 24-
hour (or daily) standard of 35 [micro]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average
of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations (78 FR 3086, January
15, 2013). EPA established the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS based on
significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating the
serious health effects associated with exposures to PM2.5.
The Cleveland, Ohio area was designated ``Moderate'' nonattainment for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS based on ambient monitoring data
showing that the area was above the 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\ standard. At the
time of designations, the Cleveland area had a design value of 12.5
[micro]g/m\3\ for the 2011-2013 monitoring period (80 FR 2206, January
15, 2015).
    To provide guidance on the CAA requirements for state and tribal
implementation plans to implement the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA
promulgated the ``Fine Particle Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standard: State Implementation Plan Requirements; Final Rule'' (81 FR
58010, August 24, 2016) (hereinafter, the ``PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule''). As part of the PM2.5 SIP Requirements
Rule, EPA has interpreted the requirements of the CAA to allow the
state to provide a ``precursor demonstration'' to EPA that supports the
determination that one or more PM2.5 precursors need not be
subject to control and planning requirements in a given nonattainment
area. EPA has determined that sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOX),

volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH3) are
precursors to PM, and thus the attainment plan requirements of subpart
4 initially apply equally to emissions of direct PM2.5 and
all of its identified precursors. Section 189(e) of the CAA explicitly
requires the control of major stationary sources of PM2.5
precursors, unless there is a demonstration to the satisfaction of the
EPA Administrator that such major stationary sources do not contribute
significantly to PM levels that exceed the standards in the area.
Accordingly, a state can also provide a precursor demonstration for
attainment planning purposes which finds that reducing a precursor does
not significantly reduce PM2.5 concentrations, and therefore
determines that controls are not needed for any sources of that
precursor (not just major sources) for attainment purposes. EPA has
long recognized the scientific basis for concluding that there are
multiple precursors to PM10, and in particular to
PM2.5 (Section III of Preamble of PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule).
    After Ohio's submission of the attainment plan by the CAA required
date of October 14, 2016, EPA released a November 17, 2016 memorandum
from Steve Page entitled ``Draft PM2.5 Precursor
Demonstration Guidance'' (precursor guidance), which provides guidance
to states on methods to evaluate if sources of a particular precursor
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels in the
nonattainment area. The precursor guidance provides a detailed
description of potential modeling approaches and presents possible
thresholds to use in determining whether sources of a particular
precursor contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels in the
area. Although there is no explicit concentration which EPA has
determined represents a significant contribution for PM2.5
precursor demonstrations, the precursor guidance suggests that a
contribution level of 0.2 [micro]g/m\3\, for annual average
PM2.5, could be considered an air quality change that is
``insignificant.'' The specific methods and analysis utilized by Ohio
regarding precursors are generally consistent with the PM2.5
SIP Requirements Rule and precursor guidance and are described in
detail in the sections below regarding planning requirements and NNSR
requirements.

B. CAA PM2.5 Moderate Area Nonattainment SIP Requirements

    With respect to the requirements for an attainment plan for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, the general CAA part D nonattainment area
planning requirements are found in subpart 1, and the Moderate area
planning requirements specifically for particulate matter are found in
subpart 4.
    EPA utilizes a longstanding general guidance document that
interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA commonly referred to as the
``General Preamble'' (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). The General
Preamble addresses the relationship between the subpart 1 and the
subpart 4 requirements and provides recommendations to states for
meeting statutory requirements for particulate matter attainment
planning. Specifically, the General Preamble explains that requirements
applicable to Moderate area attainment plan SIP submissions are set
forth in subpart 4, but such SIP submissions must also meet the general
attainment planning provisions in subpart 1, to the extent these
provisions ``are not otherwise subsumed by, or integrally related to,''
the more specific subpart 4 requirements (57 FR 13538). Additionally,
EPA finalized the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule to clarify our
interpretations of the statutory requirements that apply to Moderate
and ``Serious'' PM2.5 nonattainment areas under subparts 1
and 4.
    The CAA requirements of subpart 1 for attainment plans include: (i)
The section 172(c)(1) RACM/reasonably available control technology
(RACT) and attainment demonstrations; (ii) the section 172(c)(2)
requirement to demonstrate RFP; (iii) the section 172(c)(3) requirement
for emission inventories; (iv) the section 172(c)(5) requirements for a
NNSR permitting program; and (v) the section 172(c)(9) requirement for
contingency measures.
    The CAA subpart 4 requirements for Moderate areas are generally
comparable with the subpart 1 requirements and include: (i) The section
189(a)(1)(A) NNSR permit program requirements; (ii) the section
189(a)(1)(B) requirements for attainment demonstration; (iii) the
section 189(a)(1)(C) requirements for RACM; and (iv) the section 189(c)
requirements for RFP and quantitative milestones. Section 189(e) also
requires that states regulate major sources of PM2.5
precursors in a nonattainment area, unless EPA approves a demonstration
excusing the state from regulating such sources. In addition, under
subpart 4 Moderate areas must provide for attainment of the current
PM2.5 annual standard as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than the end of the 6th calendar year after designation, which is
December 31, 2021.

II. EPA's Evaluation of the Submission

    OEPA, in coordination with the Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium (LADCO), developed the attainment plan SIP submission for
the Cleveland area. This plan was subsequently put through public
process, adopted by the state, and submitted by the OEPA to EPA. This
section describes the relevant contents of the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS attainment plan SIP submission and EPA's rationale for proposing
approval of the required SIP elements of RACM, attainment
demonstration, emissions inventory, and precursor demonstrations for
both NNSR and attainment planning purposes.
    The 2012 PM2.5 attainment plan contains SIP provisions
to address the requirements for a Moderate PM2.5
nonattainment area, including RACT/RACM, emissions inventory, modeling,
attainment demonstration, transportation conformity and motor vehicle
emissions budgets, RFP with quantitative milestones, and contingency
measures. EPA is proposing to approve the RACM, emissions inventory,
attainment demonstration, and precursor demonstrations for NNSR and
attainment planning purposes, as fully meeting the requirements of the
CAA and the applicable Federal regulations. Preliminary monitoring data
indicate that the area is attaining the standard for the 2015-2017
design value period. If confirmed, certain planning requirements may be
suspended per the clean data policy (40 CFR 51.1015(a)). EPA will
continue to review other elements of the attainment plan submission in
order to determine if they are necessary for the area to attain the
standard and act on them accordingly.

Emissions Inventory 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Note that this guidance was also updated in 2017. See
``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and Regional Haze Regulations'' (EPA-454/B-17-003, July 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires the development of an
emissions inventory for nonattainment areas. In addition, the planning
and associated modeling requirements set forth in CAA section 189(a)
make the development of an accurate and up-to-date emissions inventory
a critical element of any viable attainment plan. EPA guidance
specifies the best practices for developing an emissions inventory for
PM2.5 nonattainment areas per EPA's ``Emissions Inventory
Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations'' (EPA-454/B-
07-002, April 2007). The 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS SIP submission
contains planning inventories of emission sources and emission rates
for the base year of 2011 and the projected attainment year of 2021.
OEPA selected the year 2011 as the base year because it is one of the
three years for which air quality data was used to designate the area
as nonattainment. Additionally, OEPA and LADCO determined that high-
quality emissions information was already available from the National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) for 2011. LADCO developed the base year
emissions inventory for the nonattainment area using the NEI, with
additional information for on-road and nonroad mobile sources, marine,
aircraft, and rail sources. Table 1 provides a summary of the annual
2011 emissions inventory for the Cleveland nonattainment area for
direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursors.
    OEPA's submission included detailed information for the sources in
the emissions inventory including facility name, ID, location, and
emissions, as well as documentation on mobile source model inputs for
both on-road and nonroad sources (See Docket submission and Appendix
C).

                                 Table 1--Annual Emissions Inventory for Cleveland Area for Direct PM2.5 and Precursors
                                                                          [tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       PM2.5
                  County/source sector                   --------------------------------       NOX             SO2             NH3             VOC
                                                            Filterable      Condensable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuyahoga:
    Area (nonpoint).....................................         1143.13          234.61         4989.24          188.94          670.62        12116.58
    Marine, Aircraft, Rail (MAR)........................           96.88            0.02         2822.27          187.78            0.99          288.66
    Nonroad.............................................          508.69            0.00         6045.40           17.35            8.66         8349.38
    Onroad..............................................          800.00            0.00        18764.59          132.17          428.60         8568.15
    Point EGU...........................................           32.90           33.50          771.22         1941.86            0.10           11.40
    Point Non-EGU.......................................          599.48          407.26         2404.05         4461.80           65.87          986.52
    Prescribed Fire.....................................            4.92            0.00            1.20            0.54            0.88           12.61
Lorain:
    Area (nonpoint).....................................          477.68           72.00          844.19           44.37          448.73         2721.24
    Marine, Aircraft, Rail (MAR)........................           44.39            0.00         1289.44           55.68            0.57           73.94
    Nonroad.............................................          160.82            0.00         1971.11            5.39            2.66         3009.78
    Onroad..............................................          195.49            0.00         4580.85           31.75          101.84         2177.01
    Point EGU...........................................           94.90          298.62         4673.50        32041.30            0.54           31.82
    Point Non-EGU.......................................          156.45          175.78          705.89          374.63            3.01          916.35
    Prescribed Fire.....................................            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...........................................         4615.72         1521.80        49862.95        39483.56         1736.07        39263.44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has reviewed the base-year emissions inventory and finds that
it satisfies the CAA section 172(c)(3) requirement for a comprehensive,
accurate and current inventory of actual 2011 emissions of the relevant
pollutants for PM2.5 in the Cleveland area. Thus, EPA
proposes to approve the base year emissions inventory in the SIP
submission.

Attainment Demonstration and Modeling

    Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires that a PM2.5 Moderate area
SIP contain either a demonstration that the plan will provide for
attainment by the applicable attainment date, or a demonstration that
attainment by such date is impracticable. In the attainment
demonstration of the 2016 SIP submission, OEPA described how the
attainment plan would provide for attainment of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS by the attainment date of December 31, 2021.
    Using air quality modeling, an attainment demonstration must
project that future air quality levels in the nonattainment area will
be below the standard. OEPA and LADCO conducted modeling in accordance
with EPA's April 2007 (and where appropriate, draft December 2014)
``Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and
Regional Haze.'' (attainment demonstration modeling guidance) (EPA-454/
B-07-002, April 2007). OEPA modeling is also consistent with the
November 2005 Appendix W requirement used at the time by OEPA and is
still consistent with the updated January 2017 (82 FR 5182) ``Guideline
on Air Quality Models.'' (CFR Title 40, Part 51, Appendix W.) In
addition, OEPA submitted a precursor demonstration that is consistent
with the recommendations contained in EPA's precursor guidance document
released in November 2016. (``PM2.5 Precursor Demonstration
Guidance,'' memorandum issued by Steven Page, Director of EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, November 17, 2016).
    Per the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, the attainment
demonstration modeling guidance provides recommendations that include:
Developing a conceptual description of the problem to be addressed;
developing a modeling/analysis protocol; selecting an appropriate model
to support the demonstration; selecting appropriate meteorological
episodes or time periods to model; choosing an appropriate area to
model with appropriate horizontal/vertical resolution; generating
meteorological and air quality inputs to the air quality model;
generating emissions inputs to the air quality model; and, evaluating
performance of the air quality model. After these steps are completed,
the state can apply a model to simulate effects of future year
emissions and candidate control strategies.
    OEPA and LADCO calculated the baseline design value for
PM2.5 using the procedures contained in appendix N to 40 CFR
50, ``Interpretation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter,'' and EPA attainment demonstration modeling
guidance. Ambient PM2.5 concentrations for the 2009-2013
time frame (a weighted average of the 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-
2013 design value periods, as recommended by the

Modeling Guidance) were used to calculate baseline design values
ranging from 9.64-12.82 [micro]g/m\3\ for the seven PM2.5
monitoring locations in the nonattainment area (see Table 2). Detailed
methods for the baseline design value calculations are in Appendix B of
the 2016 SIP submission (See Docket).
    Next, OEPA and LADCO compiled base-year emission inventories (as
discussed above) and projected emission inventories for the attainment
year 2021. LADCO utilized emission inventories compiled by EPA for the
years 2011, 2017, and 2025 as the starting point. EPA's 2011 emissions
inventory (Version 2011eh) is based on the 2011 NEI, version 2
(2011NEIv2). The inventory uses hourly 2011 continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) data for electric generating units (EGUs)
emissions, hourly on-road mobile emissions, and 2011 day-specific wild
and prescribed fire data. Emissions include all criteria pollutants and
precursors (CAPs), and a few hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). See EPA's
Technical Support Document (EPA, 2015A) for a thorough description of
the methodology used to develop the 2011 emissions inventory.
    EPA projected future emission inventories for the years 2017 and
2025 based on the 2011 baseline inventory. The future-year scenarios
incorporate current ``on-the-books'' regulations, and do not include
any additional measures or controls. See, EPA (2015A) for a thorough
description of the methodology used to project future emissions. For
most emissions categories, LADCO developed the 2021 future-year
emissions inventory by interpolating between EPA's 2017 and 2025
inventories. The interpolation was done for each model species at each
model cell for every model hour. However, LADCO developed updated 2021
EGU emissions by using the Eastern Regional Technical Advisory
Committee EGU Tool (ERTAC) and updated 2021 regional on-road mobile
emissions using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014) and
Ramboll-Environ emissions (See Appendix B and C for detailed
discussion).
    For EGU projections, Ohio and LADCO relied on the U.S. Energy
Information Administration's ``High Oil and Gas Resource'' (See Docket
for detailed discussion). The projected emissions inventory not only
accounts for growth in economic sectors, but also includes emissions
controls (existing or future regulations) that will impact sources in
the area. In this case, OEPA and LADCO only modeled controls that have
been promulgated, with no new future controls being added since OEPA
has determined that additional RACT and RACM would not be necessary for
expeditious attainment, and that current controls in the area are
sufficient to meet the RACM requirement. For modeling purposes no
additional RACM/RACT was applied to future year inventories.
    The base-year and projected emission inventories were used in a
photochemical grid model, the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with
extensions (CAMx), to project the expected change from base-year to
future year design values. The modeled attainment demonstration results
in a predicted future-year concentration at each PM2.5
ambient monitor location within the Cleveland nonattainment area. The
results from the CAMx modeling were then used as inputs to EPA's
Modeled Attainment Test Software (MATS) to calculate the design values
for each monitored location in the attainment year 2021 using
information on current PM2.5 speciation. Modeled attainment
year results show that the area is expected to meet the standard (all
2021 values at existing monitor locations are below 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\) by
the 2021 attainment date (See Table 2).

                          Table 2--Projected PM2.5 Design Values ([mu]g/m\3\) for 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2021
                      County                          Monitor ID     2011 Baseline     Projected
                                                                     design value    design value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuyahoga..........................................     39-035-0034           10.02            8.07
                                                       39-035-0038           12.82           10.69
                                                       39-035-0045           11.99            9.84
                                                       39-035-0060           12.79           10.45
                                                       39-035-0065           12.49           10.32
                                                       39-035-1002           10.36            8.41
Lorain............................................     39-093-3002            9.64            8.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above, EPA is proposing to approve OEPA's
demonstration of attainment for 2021 as meeting the statutory
requirement in CAA 189(a)(1)(B).

RACM/RACT Requirements

    The general SIP planning requirements for nonattainment areas under
subpart 1 include CAA section 172(c)(1), which requires implementation
of all RACM (including RACT). Section 172(c)(1) requires that
attainment plans provide for the implementation of RACM (including
RACT) to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. Therefore, what
constitutes RACM and RACT is related to what is necessary for
attainment, as well as expeditious attainment, in a given area.
    Subpart 4 also requires states to develop attainment plans that
evaluate potential control measures and impose RACM and RACT on sources
within a Moderate nonattainment area that are necessary to
expeditiously attain the NAAQS. Specifically, CAA section 189(a)(1)(C)
requires that Moderate nonattainment plans provide for implementation
of RACM and RACT no later than four years after the area is designated
as nonattainment. As with subpart 1, the terms RACM and RACT are not
defined within subpart 4. Nor do the provisions of subpart 4 specify
how states are to meet the RACM and RACT requirements. However, EPA's
longstanding guidance in the General Preamble provides recommendations
for determining which control measures constitute RACM and RACT for
purposes of meeting the statutory requirements of subpart 4 (57 FR
13540-13541).
    For both RACM and RACT, EPA notes that an overarching principle is
that if a given control measure is not needed to attain the relevant
NAAQS in a given area as expeditiously as practicable, then that
control measure would not be required as RACM or RACT because it would
not be reasonable to impose controls that are not in fact needed for
attainment purposes. Accordingly, a RACM and RACT analysis is a process
to identify emission sources, evaluate

potential emission controls, and impose those control measures and
technologies that are reasonable and necessary to bring the area into
attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but by no later than the
statutory attainment date for the area.
    EPA has long applied a policy that states must evaluate the
combined effect of reasonably available control measures that, if
implemented collectively, would advance the attainment date by at least
one year and should be adopted. Since the area's preliminary data
indicate that it will attain the NAAQs based on the 2015-2017 design
value period, it is not necessary to implement additional controls. The
data indicates that the area is attaining the standard with current
Federal, state, and local permanent and enforceable measures.
    OEPA provided a RACM and RACT analysis in Appendix E of the 2012
PM2.5 attainment plan SIP submission. Ohio has found that
existing measures for PM2.5, SO2 and
NOX for area sources, mobile sources and stationary sources
constitute RACT/RACM (80 FR 68253; 81 FR 58402; 82 FR 16938). Some of
the current controls for the area that are sufficient to meet the RACM/
RACT requirement include: Existing PM2.5 and ozone RACT
rules, mobile source controls, SO2 reductions from 2010
SO2 nonattainment areas including a large EGU in neighboring
Lake County, Federal interstate transport rules, and regional haze.
    OEPA provided an attainment analysis that consisted of: First, a
modeling demonstration that the area would attain by the attainment
date in 2021 with current on-the-books controls and measures; and
second, a demonstration showing that by interpolating modeled future
values from 2021 with 2016 design values at the monitored sites, the
area would be attaining the standard in both 2020 (at 11.0 [mu]g/m\3\)
and 2019 (at 11.3 [mu]g/m\3\) at the design value monitor prior to the
2021 statutory attainment date. The interpolation suggested that the
area would attain at the end of 2017, similar to EPA modeling analysis
discussed below, and is now verified by the preliminary 2015-2017
design values that indicate the area is likely attaining as of the end
of 2017. In addition, the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule
outlines the option for states to do an additional modeling
demonstration to show that specific PM2.5 precursors are not
significant contributors to PM2.5 levels that exceed the
standard in the area. OEPA provided a precursor demonstration modeling
analysis that was intended to demonstrate that emissions of
NH3 and VOC are not significant PM2.5 precursors
for attainment planning purposes.

Precursor Demonstration for Attainment Planning Purposes

    For the precursor demonstration, OEPA and LADCO initially performed
a ``concentration-based'' contribution analysis using speciated
monitoring data to determine whether NH3 or VOC contribute
significantly to PM2.5 concentrations in the area, based on
monitored values alone. However, using the assumption suggested in the
draft precursor demonstration guidance that all NH3
emissions are associated with the nitrate portion of PM2.5
mass, and that all VOC emissions are associated with the organic carbon
portion of PM2.5 mass, the state could not determine that
these precursors did not make a significant contribution.
    Therefore, the state proceeded with a sensitivity analysis to
determine the impact of reducing NH3 and VOC emissions on
PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area. OEPA and
LADCO performed a modeled sensitivity analysis for attainment planning
purposes using the 2021 attainment year concentrations at each monitor
in the Cleveland area. LADCO applied a 40% emission reduction to
anthropogenic sources of NH3 and VOC emissions for all
source categories in the Cleveland nonattainment area. The OEPA
submission indicated that the 40% comprehensive reduction was chosen
because it was within the range of a previously published,
comprehensive sensitivity analysis done in photochemical modeling which
typically uses 30-50% when applying the reduction across all emission
sectors--as done for this analysis.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA examined examples in the published literature of general
sensitivity modeling studies that look at the impact of across-the-
board percentage reductions in precursor emissions on secondary
pollutants (including PM2.5, PM10, and ozone)
(Vieno, 2016; Megaritis, 2013; Harrison, 2013; Derwent, 2014; Liu,
2010; Pun, 2001). The majority of studies have used across the board
percentage precursor emissions reductions of between 30% and 60%,
with the most common reduction percentages being 30% and 50%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The submission was made by the state prior to the date that the
precursor guidance was issued by EPA; however, the modeled reduction
levels are still within the suggested range of 30-70% reductions found
in the precursor guidance.
    The results of the 2021 attainment planning sensitivity analyses
show modeled impacts from reducing NH3 by 40% on
PM2.5 concentrations at the monitors ranging from 0.10-0.21
[micro]g/m\3\, and modeled impacts from reducing VOC ranging from 0.0-
0.01 [micro]g/m\3\. Although there is no explicit concentration which
EPA has determined represents a significant contribution, the current
draft precursor guidance suggests that a contribution level of 0.2
[micro]g/m\3\ is an appropriate recommended threshold to identify an
air quality change that is ``insignificant'' for annual average
PM2.5. In this case, all modeled impacts for VOC emissions
are well below the recommended threshold, and most of the modeled
NH3 impacts are at or below the threshold as well, with only
one ambient air quality monitor showing modeled ambient
PM2.5 levels slightly above the recommended threshold (at
0.21 [micro]g/m\3\).
    EPA's precursor guidance noted that there may be cases where
precursor emissions have an impact above the recommended contribution
thresholds, yet do not ``significantly contribute'' to levels that
exceed the standard in the area (pursuant to section 189(e)). Under the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, the significance of a
precursor's contribution is to be determined ``based on the facts and
circumstances of the area.'' Air agencies may thus provide EPA with
information related to other factors they believe should be considered
in determining whether the contribution of emissions of a particular
precursor to levels that exceed the NAAQS is ``significant'' or not.
Such factors may include: The amount by which a precursor's
contribution exceeds the recommended contribution thresholds; the
severity of nonattainment at relevant monitors and/or grid cell
locations in the area; trends in ambient speciation data and precursor
emissions; and any other relevant information.
    Based on a number of factors, in this case EPA believes that
NH3 is not a significant precursor. The relevant factors
include: The magnitude of the amount above the threshold is small
compared to the total threshold amount (5% of the total threshold
amount); the area continues to trend downward in both ambient
monitoring data and emissions in direct PM2.5 and
precursors; current preliminary monitoring data shows the area is
attaining the standard; and additionally, this small amount of
PM2.5 resulting from NH3 would not interfere with
the area's ability to attain the standard, as evidenced by the fact
that the preliminary 2015-2017 design value is 0.7 [micro]g/m\3\ below
the NAAQS. Regardless of the finding of significance for these
precursors, the area is expected to attain (based on preliminary design
values) with only current controls in place, and it would not be
required to control any sources further. Additionally, the area

has preliminary 2015-2017 data indicating that it has a three-year
design value below the level of the NAAQS, so that any additional
controls would not be implemented until well after the area has
attained the standard.
    Based on the above, EPA agrees with the determination by Ohio that
for attainment planning purposes, additional controls on existing
sources of NH3 and VOC emissions do not need to be imposed.

RACM/RACT Analysis

    OEPA conducted a six-step RACM analysis that focused on direct
PM2.5, NOX, and SO2: (1) Identify
sources in the area for PM2.5, NOX, and
SO2--that comprised over 90% of the emissions for each
pollutant over all source categories; (2) identify potential control
measures; (3) evaluate technological feasibility; (4) evaluate economic
feasibility; (5) determine if the measures can be implemented within
both four and five years; (6) evaluate the earliest practical year for
attainment.
    As detailed in OEPA's RACT/RACM analysis in Appendix E, many of the
sources are already well controlled. The state then identified current
controls for each source as well as any additional measures or controls
that are potentially available to each of the identified sources using
EPA's ``Menu of Control Measures'' document, available online at http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html and the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
(RBLC) at http://cfpub.epa.gov/rblc/. OEPA then determined if any of
the identified controls were technologically or economically feasible
using EPA's the method outlined in the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule, which can include factors such as a source's process
and operating procedures, raw materials, physical plant layout, and
potential environmental impacts such as increased water pollution,
waste disposal and energy requirements (see 40 CFR 51.1009(a)(3)(i)).
    In regard to area and mobile sources, a state may tailor the
analysis to the considerations that are relevant to the local
circumstances, such as the condition and extent of needed
infrastructure, population size, and workforce type and habits, all of
which may impact the availability of potential control measures in the
area. (81 FR 58010)
    OEPA also determined economic feasibility of each identified
measure or technology. That analysis included consideration of the cost
of reducing emissions in the area and the difference between the cost
of an emissions reduction measure at a particular source in the area
and the cost of emissions reduction measures that have been implemented
at similar sources in the same or other areas.
    OEPA determined that the technologically feasible measures that
were identified were not economically feasible. For example, the state
determined that the cost-effectiveness ranged from $5800 per ton to
more than $40,000 per ton for measures that were found to be
technologically feasible for major stationary sources. In addition, the
highest costs of reductions were generally linked to controls of direct
PM2.5, and OEPA has determined that reductions in direct
PM2.5 would be the most effective at reducing the monitored
concentrations in the Cleveland area. Thus, the state found that the
most effective controls are not reasonable to implement based on cost.
    Finally, OEPA analyzed the implementation time frame of controls
within four years and the earliest applicable attainment date, which by
interpolation would be the end of 2017, and determined that the area
would attain the standard prior to the state rulemaking and
implementation of additional controls in the area. In fact, the area
has preliminary 2015-2017 data indicating that it has a three-year
design value below the level of the NAAQS, making implementation of
additional controls to achieve attainment moot.
    As noted by OEPA, both the Federal and state ``on the books''
controls have led to additional control and will lead to additional
emissions reductions in the future. Because of the historic
nonattainment status of this area for both ozone and PM2.5,
the Cleveland nonattainment area is one of the most well controlled
areas in the state for pollutants contributing to formation of both
PM2.5 and ozone. Ohio's current rules, current controls and
the Federal ``on the books'' controls continue to satisfy RACT/RACM for
the annual PM2.5 standard. Some of the current controls that
are sufficient to meet the RACT/RACM requirement are Ohio's current
RACT program found in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-17,
which controls NOX; rules under OAC Chapter 3745-18 which
control SO2 sources for the state; and the inspection and
maintenance program contained in OAC Chapter 3745-26, which reduces
emissions of NOX and VOC from on-road vehicles. OEPA has
determined that no additional controls are feasible to implement as
RACM/RACT in the Cleveland area, and that current controls meet the
requirement for RACM under 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C).
    EPA finds OEPA's determination reasonable, and is proposing to
approve OEPA's determination that current controls meet the RACM/RACT
requirement and that additional controls are not reasonable for other
sources in the area or necessary to expeditiously attain the NAAQS.
    As noted above, the attainment demonstration modeling analysis
reflecting 2021 projected emissions based on only current controls
shows that projected 2021 air quality values at monitoring sites in the
area range from 8.07-10.69 [micro]g/m\3\, well below the standard.
Monitoring data for the 2014-2016 design values show only one monitor
in the area is above the standard at 12.2 [micro]g/m\3\, and is
trending downward. Interpolation between current and projected monitor
values indicates that the area is likely to attain the standard with
current controls by the end of the 2017 calendar year. Current,
preliminary monitored design values for the years 2015-2017 shows the
highest values being monitored in the Cleveland area is 11.3 [mu]g/
m\3\. EPA also conducted modeling in 2015 in support of regulatory
initiatives regarding the revised ozone NAAQS and interstate transport
(Appendix B), and these analyses also indicate that the Cleveland area
will attain the PM2.5 NAAQS well before the outermost
attainment date of December 31, 2021.
    Based on the above, EPA is proposing to find that current controls
on sources in the nonattainment area meet the requirements of section
172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(C) of the CAA. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to approve current controls: Federal mobile source standards,
transport rules, Regional Haze plans, and state VOC RACT rules as
meeting the RACM/RACT provisions.

Nonattainment NSR Precursor Demonstration

    In addition to the attainment planning precursor demonstrations,
which showed that neither existing sources of VOC nor existing sources
of NH3 have a significant contribution to PM2.5
concentrations, OEPA provided an analysis for both VOC and
NH3 intended to show that increases in emissions of these
precursors that may result from new or modified sources would not make
a significant contribution to PM2.5 concentrations in the
area. This demonstration is intended to justify the state's
determination that major stationary sources of these precursors do not
need to be regulated under the NNSR program for the area. For NNSR
permitting purposes, CAA section 189(e), as interpreted by the
PM2.5 SIP

Requirements Rule, provides an option for the state to provide a
precursor demonstration intended to show that increases in emissions
from potential new and existing major stationary sources of a
particular precursor would not contribute significantly to levels that
exceed the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in a particular nonattainment
area. 40 CFR 51.1006(a)(3). In particular, EPA's regulations provide
that a state choosing to submit an NNSR precursor demonstration should
evaluate the sensitivity of PM2.5 levels in the
nonattainment area to an increase in emissions of the precursor. If the
state demonstrates that the estimated air quality changes determined
through such an analysis are not significant, based on the facts and
circumstances of the area, the state may use this information to
identify new major stationary sources and major modifications of a
precursor that will not be considered to contribute significantly to
PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard in the nonattainment
area under CAA section 189(e). Id. 51.1006(a)(3)(i). If EPA approves
the state's NNSR precursor demonstration for a nonattainment area,
major sources of the relevant precursor can be exempted from the NNSR
major source permitting requirements for PM2.5 with respect
to that precursor. Id. 51.1006(a)(3)(ii).
    For NNSR permitting purposes, sensitivity analyses examine
potential increases in emissions through a model simulation that
evaluates the effect on PM2.5 concentrations in the area
resulting from a given set of precursor emission increases from one or
more new or modified stationary sources. Ohio's 2011 and 2021
comprehensive modeling inventories were used for this analysis. To help
determine a theoretical growth scenario as a result of major source
expansion (new or modified), Ohio first prepared inventories for VOC
and NH3 for 2008 to 2014 for the entire State from Ohio's
annual emissions reporting program. Ohio used inventories for the
entire State in order to determine what types of major sources/source
categories are likely to expand (new or modified) within the Cleveland
area and at what magnitude (tons per year) those expansions are likely
to occur. These inventories and the full detailed analysis are
contained in Appendix F of Ohio's submission.
    Consistent with EPA's regulation and draft guidance, OEPA and LADCO
have performed sensitivity analyses of potential increases in emissions
through a model simulation that evaluates the effect on
PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area (including
unmonitored areas) resulting from a given set of hypothetical
NH3 or VOC precursor emission increases from modified major
stationary sources of the respective precursors in the nonattainment
area. The inventories and the full detailed analysis are contained in
Appendix F of Ohio's submission. For the NH3 analysis, Ohio
assumed emissions increases at three existing locations of
NH3 in the area, as these would be the most likely future
areas of growth in the Cleveland area. EPA believes that the use of the
historical inventories to predict growth is reflective of the future
potential increases specific to the Cleveland area given the current
types of facilities and their respective locations, the urban density
and ability to expand or build, as well as the types of state
regulation or other Federal requirements (such as National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) on facility types and controls
required for other pollutants. EPA believes that this is an acceptable
approach to estimating potential future growth.
    In addition to the modeled emissions increases based on historical
growth at sources, LADCO and OEPA did an additional NH3
modeling analysis (submitted July 18, 2017) based on a 100 tpy
emissions increase (to represent major sources) in each modeled grid
cell in the nonattainment area. EPA believes that this is a
sufficiently conservative analysis that exceeds the level of actual
potential NH3 emissions growth likely to occur in the area.
Both of these approaches are consistent with suggested modeling in
EPA's precursor guidance. Thus, EPA finds that this analysis serves as
a reasonable evaluation of the sensitivity of PM2.5
concentrations to a large emissions increase across the spatial area.
    For the VOC analysis, Ohio added 1,486 tpy of VOC emissions at 3
existing source locations where VOC emissions increases potentially
could occur in the nonattainment area. Compared to the 2011 inventory,
this represents a 75% increase in VOC emissions from existing
stationary sources (EGU and non-EGU). Compared to the 2021 projected
inventory, this represents an 80% increase in stationary source
emissions. For the NH3 analysis, Ohio added 325 tpy of
NH3 emissions (scenario 1) to 3 existing source locations
where NH3 emissions increases potentially could occur in the
nonattainment area. Compared to the 2011 inventory, this represents a
447% increase in NH3 emissions from existing stationary
sources. Compared to the 2021 projected inventory, this represents a
449% increase in NH3 from stationary sources. The additional
NH3 analysis (scenario 2) had a total emissions increase of
1,700 tpy, which is over 500% higher growth than the historical
NH3 growth (scenario 1).
    Ohio found the addition of the NH3 emissions
(approximately 350 tpy) into the model based on historical growth
(scenario 1) would result in a peak impact of 0.08 [mu]g/m\3\, and the
addition of the above VOC emissions would result in a peak impact of
0.02 [mu]g/m\3\. The modeled impacts are well below the recommended
significance contribution threshold of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\; for VOC it is an
order of magnitude difference, and for NH3 the maximum value
is less than half the recommended significant contribution threshold
level. The results of NH3 modeling for scenario 2 indicate
that, even with a conservatively large NH3 increase, the
maximum impact was 0.24 [mu]g/m\3\, which is only slightly above the
recommended contribution threshold of 0.2 [mu]g/m\3\.
    While the increase is slightly above the recommended contribution
threshold, EPA believes that it is reasonable to conclude that
NH3 emissions from major stationary sources (in the context
of a NNSR precursor demonstration) do not contribute significantly to
PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area for the
following reasons: Historical growth of NH3 sources in the
area are significantly less than what was modeled for scenario 2; the
only likely future increases of NH3 emissions from major
sources in the area are from the increased use of NH3 for
EGU NOX control (ammonia slip) and would likely occur at
existing EGUs (as modeled in scenario 1); the area continues to trend
downward in both monitored PM2.5 concentrations and
PM2.5 (direct and precursor) emissions; current preliminary
monitoring data shows the area is attaining the standard; and, this
small amount of additional ambient PM2.5 concentration,
based on the modeling analysis, would therefore not interfere with the
area's ability to attain the standard given that the current
preliminary design value for 2015-2017 is 11.3 [mu]g/m\3\; and the
additional modeled increase of 0.24 [mu]g/m\3\ would not impact the
area's ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS.
    Based on the results of the modeling demonstration and the
additional factors described in this section, EPA is proposing to
approve Ohio's determination that emissions increases of either VOC or
NH3 from new and modified major stationary sources would not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Cleveland nonattainment

area. Accordingly, new or modified major sources of VOC and
NH3 may be exempted from the state's NNSR program
requirements for PM2.5 in the Cleveland PM2.5
nonattainment area.

III. EPA's Proposed Action

    Ohio's attainment demonstration modeling, and precursor analysis
for both attainment planning RACM and nonattainment NNSR determined
that VOCs and NH3 do not significantly contribute to
PM2.5 concentrations in the area. EPA finds that Ohio's
analysis is reasonable and well supported. EPA is thus proposing to
approve the following elements of the 2012 SIP submission: The base
year 2011 emissions inventory to meet the section 172(c)(3) requirement
for emission inventories; the demonstration of attainment for 2021 as
meeting the statutory requirement in CAA 189(a)(1)(B); current controls
as meeting RACM requirements of 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1(C).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 21, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-11748 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P