[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38247-38256]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15295]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; Supplemental.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0338, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-Mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2012-0338. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of this document,
``What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?''
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

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

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:

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

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What is the background for the supplemental proposal?

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

III. On what specific issues is EPA taking comments?

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

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

into account the effect of the Court's ruling on the area's maintenance
plan, which EPA views as approvable when subpart 4 requirements are
considered.
a. Applicable Requirements for Purposes of Evaluating the Redesignation
Request
    With respect to the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the
Court's January 4, 2013, ruling rejected EPA's reasons for implementing
the PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with the provisions of
subpart 1, and remanded that matter to EPA, so that it could address
implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of
part D of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For the purposes of
evaluating Ohio's redesignation request for the Ohio portion of the
Wheeling area, to the extent that implementation under subpart 4 would
impose additional requirements for areas designated nonattainment, EPA
believes that those requirements are not ``applicable'' for the
purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not required to
consider subpart 4 requirements with respect to the Ohio portion of the
Wheeling area redesignation. Under its longstanding interpretation of
the CAA, EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a
threshold matter, that the part D provisions which are ``applicable''
and which must be approved in order for EPA to redesignate an area
include only those which came due prior to a state's submittal of a
complete redesignation request. See ``Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992
(Calcagni memorandum). See also ``State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum
from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air and
Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro memorandum); Final Redesignation
of Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 12465-66, March 7, 1995); Final
Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 FR 25418, 25424-27, May 12,
2003); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding
EPA's redesignation rulemaking applying this interpretation and
expressly rejecting Sierra Club's view that the meaning of
``applicable'' under the statute is ``whatever should have been in the
plan at the time of attainment rather than whatever actually was in the
plan and already implemented or due at the time of attainment'').\1\ In
this case, at the time that Ohio submitted its redesignation request,
requirements under subpart 4 were not due, and indeed, were not yet
known to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section
189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit provisions
requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM10, without adding
to them. Consequently, EPA believes that section 189(a)(1)(A) does not
itself impose for redesignation purposes any additional requirements
for moderate areas beyond those contained in subpart 1.\5\ In any
event, in the context of redesignation, EPA has long relied on the
interpretation that a fully approved nonattainment new source review
program is not considered an applicable requirement for redesignation,
provided the area can maintain the standard with a prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) program after redesignation. A detailed
rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,
entitled, ``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.'' See also rulemakings for Detroit,
Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,
Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66
FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-
31837, June 21, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

The General Preamble also explained that

[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring RFP
and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements no longer
apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible for
redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans . . .
provides specific requirements for contingency measures that
effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for
these areas.

Id.

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

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

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

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

Id. at 21, n.7.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Ammonia and VOC Comprehensive Emissions Inventories

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

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

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

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

IV. Summary of Proposed Actions

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

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, these proposed actions do not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law and the CAA. For that
reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible

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

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

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

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

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


[Federal Register: September 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 186)]
[Notices]
[Page 56202-56203]
[DOCID:fr26se06-125]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54471; File No. SR-NASD-2006-081]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Adopt New NASD
Rule 5150 Relating to Trade-Throughs

September 19, 2006.
    On July 11, 2006, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt a new NASD rule relating
to trade-throughs. The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on July 27, 2006.\3\ The Commission received no
comment letters on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54186 (July 20,
2006), 71 FR 42698.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed rule NASD Rule 5150 would require an NASD member that is
registered as a market maker with the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq
Exchange'') in an ITS Security \4\ to comply with the provisions of
NASD Rule 5262 relating to trade-throughs with respect to that security
for trades reported to the NASD. Accordingly, the NASD's proposed rule
will not take effect until the Nasdaq Exchange begins operations as an
exchange in such securities.\5\ The proposed rule further defines the
term ``block transaction'' for purposes of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``ITS Security'' is defined in NASD Rule 5210(c) as
``any security which may be traded through the [ITS] System by an
ITS/CAES Market Maker.''
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53128 (January 13,
2006), 71 FR 3550 (January 23, 2006); and 54085 (June 30, 2006), 71
FR 38910 (July 10, 2006). Currently, the Nasdaq Exchange operates as
a national securities exchange for securities listed on the Nasdaq
Exchange and reported to the Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan
Governing the Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of
Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities
on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis (``Nasdaq-
Listed Securities'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of Section 15A of the Act,\6\ in general, and
with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Proposed NASD Rule 5150 will
maintain, after the Nasdaq Exchange begins operations as a national
securities exchange for ITS Securities, the application of the NASD's
trade-through rule, Rule 5162, to NASD members that are also Nasdaq
market makers in ITS Securities to the extent such market makers report
transactions in ITS Securities to the NASD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\8\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-2006-081) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-8238 Filed 9-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: December 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 70798-70801]
[DOCID:fr06de06-104]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-27587]

Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940

November 30, 2006.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
November, 2006. A copy of each application may be obtained for a fee at
the SEC's Public Reference Branch (tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>). An order
granting each application will be issued unless the SEC orders a
hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by
writing to the SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the
relevant applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail.
Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on December
27, 2006, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the
applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's
interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons
who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by
writing to the Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100
F

Street, NE.,Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    For Further Information Contact: Diane L. Titus at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
SEC, Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-4041.

The Guardian Cash Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-3324]; The Guardian Bond
Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-3634]; GIAC Funds, Inc. [File No. 811-6231]

    Summary: Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased
to be an investment company. On October 9, 2006, each applicant
transferred its assets to RS Variable Products Trust, based on net
asset value. Expenses of $2,500 were incurred in connection with each
reorganization and were paid by Guardian Investor Services LLC,
applicants' investment adviser, or its affiliates.
    Filing Dates: The applications were filed on October 19, 2006, and
The Guardian Bond Fund, Inc., filed an amended application on November
16, 2006.
    Applicants' Address: 7 Hanover Sq., New York, NY 10004.

Old Mutual Analytic Global Long-Short Fund [File No. 811-21795]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has
never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to
make a public offering or engage in business of any kind.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on October 16, 2006, and
amended on November 13, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: c/o Old Mutual Capital, Inc., 4643 South
Ulster St., Suite 600, Denver, CO 80237.

The Park Avenue Portfolio [File No. 811-5641]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On October 9, 2006 and October 16, 2006,
applicant transferred its assets to RS Investment Trust, based on net
asset value. Expenses of $2,500 incurred in connection with the
reorganization were paid by Guardian Investor Services LLC, applicant's
investment adviser, or its affiliates.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 20, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: 7 Hanover Sq., New York, NY 10004.

The Bramwell Funds, Inc. [File No. 811-8546]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On March 17, 2006, applicant transferred the
assets of each of its two series to newly created series of Sentinel
Group Funds, Inc., based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately
$367,468 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
Sentinel Advisors Company, the investment adviser for the acquiring
fund, or an affiliate and Bramwell Capital Management, Inc.,
applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on October 17, 2006, and
amended on November 7, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: 745 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10151.

Morgan Stanley Total Return Income Securities Fund [File No. 811-10357]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. Applicant has never made a public offering of
its securities and does not propose to make a public offering or engage
in business of any kind.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on September 25, 2006, and
amended on October 25, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc., 1221
Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020.

Columbia Daily Income Company [File No. 811-2507]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On November 21, 2005, applicant transferred
its assets to a corresponding series of Columbia Funds Series Trust,
based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $181,275 incurred
in connection with the reorganization were paid by applicant and
Columbia Management Advisors, LLC, applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on June 23, 2006, and
amended on November 9, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: 1301 SW Fifth Ave., Portland, OR 97201.

Columbia Funds Trust III [File No. 811-881]; Columbia Funds Trust IV
[File No. 811-2865]; Columbia Funds Trust II [File No. 811-3009];
Columbia Funds Trust VIII [File No. 811-4552]; Columbia Funds Trust XI
[File No. 811-4978]; Columbia Funds Trust V [File No. 811-5030];
Columbia Funds Trust VI [File No. 811-6529]

    Summary: Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased
to be an investment company. On March 27, 2006, each series of each
applicant transferred its assets to a corresponding series of Columbia
Funds Series Trust I, based on net asset value. Expenses of
approximately $152,827, $76,413, $57,310, $38,207, $229,240, $286,550
and $57,310, respectively, incurred in connection with the
reorganizations were paid by Columbia Management Advisors, LLC,
applicants' investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The applications were filed on June 23, 2006, and
amended on November 7, 2006.
    Applicants' Address: One Financial Center, Boston, MA 02111.

Columbia Oregon Municipal Bond Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-3983]; Columbia
Mid Cap Growth Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-4362]; Columbia Balanced Fund,
Inc. [File No. 811-6338]; Columbia Small Cap Growth Fund, Inc. [File
No. 811-7671]; Columbia Real Estate Equity Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-
8256]; Columbia Technology Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-10159]; Columbia
Strategic Investor Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-10161]

    Summary: Each applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased
to be an investment company. On March 27, 2006, each applicant
transferred its assets to a corresponding series of Columbia Funds
Series Trust I, based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately
$19,103 incurred in connection with each reorganization were paid by
Columbia Management Advisors, LLC, applicants' investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The applications were filed on June 23, 2006, and
amended on November 7, 2006.
    Applicants' Address: 1301 SW Fifth Ave., Portland, OR 97201.

Columbia Funds Trust VII [File No. 811-6347]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On October 10, 2005, applicant transferred
its assets to a corresponding series of Columbia Funds Series Trust I,
based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $114,620 incurred
in connection with the reorganization were paid by Columbia Management
Advisors, LLC, applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on June 23, 2006, and
amended on July 17, 2006 and November 7, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: One Financial Center, Boston, MA 02111.

Columbia High Yield Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-7834]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On March 27, 2006, applicant transferred its
assets to a corresponding series of Columbia Funds Series Trust I,
based on net asset value. Expenses of $19,103 incurred in connection
with the reorganization were paid by Columbia Management Advisors, LLC,
applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on June 23, 2006, and
amended on November 7, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: 1301 SW Fifth Ave., Portland, OR 97201.

USAA Life Investment Trust [811-8672]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On June 30, 2006, applicant made a
liquidating distribution of assets to its shareholders, based on net
asset value. Expenses of $13,915 incurred in connection with the
liquidation were paid by USAA Life Insurance Company, an affiliate of
USAA Investment Management Company, the adviser and principal
underwriter for applicant.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on August 31, 2006, and
amended on November 24, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: USAA Life Investment Trust, 9800
Fredericksburg Road, San Antonio, Texas 78288.

MetLife of CT Variable Life Insurance Separate Account Four [File No.
811-7889]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. Applicant has never made a public offering of
its securities and does not propose to make a public offering or engage
in business of any kind.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on September 9, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, One
City Place, 185 Asylum Street 3CP, Hartford, CT 06103-3415.

MetLife of CT Fund VA for Variable Annuities [File No. 811-8740]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. Applicant has not made any public offering of
its securities and is not engaged, or intending to engage in any
business activity other than those necessary for winding up its
affairs.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on September 17, 2002, and
amended on September 7, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: MetLife Life and Annuity Company of
Connecticut, One City Place, 185 Asylum Street 3CP, Hartford, CT 06103-
3415.

Tactical Growth and Income Stock Account for Variable Annuities [File
No. 811-5090]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On April 28, 2006, applicant made a
distribution of its assets to its shareholders in connection with its
merger with MetLife Stock Index Portfolio of Metropolitan Series Fund,
Inc. Expenses of $ 57,745 were incurred in connection with the merger.
These expenses were paid by The Travelers Insurance Company,
applicant's depositor.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 18, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: One Cityplace, Hartford, Connecticut 06103.

Tactical Short-Term Bond Account for Variable Annuities [File No. 811-
5089]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On April 28, 2006, applicant made a
distribution of its assets to its shareholders in connection with its
merger with BlackRock Money Market Portfolio of Metropolitan Series
Fund, Inc. Expenses of $57,745 were incurred in connection with the
merger. These expenses were paid by The Travelers Insurance Company,
applicant's depositor.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 18, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: One Cityplace, Hartford, Connecticut 06103.

The Travelers Growth and Income Stock Account for Variable Annuities
[File No. 811-1539]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On April 28, 2006, applicant made a
distribution of its assets to its shareholders in connection with its
merger with Batterymarch Growth and Income Portfolio of Met Investors
Series Trust. Expenses of $57,745 were incurred in connection with the
merger. These expenses were paid by The Travelers Insurance Company,
applicant's depositor.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 18, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: One Cityplace, Hartford, Connecticut 06103.

The Travelers Quality Bond Account for Variable Annuities [File No.
811-2571]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On April 28, 2006, applicant made a
distribution of its assets to its shareholders in connection with its
merger with BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio of Metropolitan Series
Fund, Inc. Expenses of $57,745 were incurred in connection with the
merger. These expenses were paid by The Travelers Insurance Company,
applicant's depositor.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 18, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: One Cityplace, Hartford, Connecticut 06103.

Travelers Money Market Account For Variable Annuities [File No. 811-
3409]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On April 28, 2006, applicant made a
distribution of its assets to its shareholders in connection with its
merger with BlackRock Money Market Portfolio of Metropolitan Series
Fund, Inc. Expenses of $57,745 were incurred in connection with the
merger. These expenses were paid by The Travelers Insurance Company,
applicant's depositor.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 18, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: One Cityplace, Hartford, Connecticut 06103.

Tactical Aggressive Stock Account for Variable Annuities [File No. 811-
5091]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On April 28, 2006, applicant made a
distribution of its assets to its shareholders in connection with its
merger with MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio of Metropolitan
Series Fund, Inc. Expenses of $57,745 were incurred in connection with
the merger. These expenses were paid by The Travelers Insurance
Company, applicant's depositor.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 18, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: One Cityplace, Hartford, Connecticut 06103.

LSW Variable Annuity Account I [File No. 811-8681]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. Applicant abandoned its intention to operate
before it received any assets. Applicant has never made a public
offering of its securities and does not propose to make a public
offering or engage in any

business activity other than that necessary to wind up its affairs.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 21, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: 1300 West Mockingbird Lane, Dallas, TX 75247.

LSW Variable Life Insurance Account [File No. 811-10315]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. Applicant abandoned its intention to operate
before it received any assets. Applicant has never made a public
offering of its securities and does not propose to make a public
offering or engage in any business activity other than that necessary
to wind up its affairs.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 21, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: 1300 West Mockingbird Lane, Dallas, TX 75247.

Guardian Variable Contract Funds, Inc. [File No. 811-3636]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. Shareholders approved the merger of applicant
on September 28, 2006, and applicant distributed its assets on October
9, 2006. The fund surviving the merger is RS Variable Products Trust, a
Massachusetts business trust and open-end management investment
company. Guardian Investor Services LLC, applicant's investment
adviser, or its affiliates paid the fees incurred in connection with
the merger.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 19, 2006.
    Applicant's Address: 7 Hanover Sq., New York, NY 10004.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-20632 Filed 12-5-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47171-47172]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19042]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Exposure Map Notice; Portsmouth International Airport at
Pease; Portsmouth, Newington, and Greenland, New Hampshire

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
determination that the noise exposure maps for Portsmouth International
Airport at Pease, as submitted by the Pease Development Authority under
the provisions of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement
Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-193) and 14 CFR Part 150, are in compliance
with applicable requirements.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's determination on
the noise exposure maps is July 30, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Doucette, Federal Aviation
Administration, New England Region, Airports Division, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA finds
that the noise exposure maps submitted for Portsmouth International
Airport at Pease are in compliance with applicable requirements of Part
150, effective July 30, 2014.
    Under Section 103 of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act''), an
airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps that meet
applicable regulations and that depict non-compatible land uses as of
the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected
aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect
such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation
with interested and affected parties in the local community,

government agencies, and persons using the airport.
    An airport operator who has submitted such noise exposure maps that
are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal
Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150, promulgated pursuant to Title I of
the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval that
sets forth the measures the operator has taken, or proposes, for the
introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
    The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure map and
related descriptions submitted by the Pease Development Authority. The
specific maps under consideration were Figure 4-1 ``2014 Existing
Conditions Noise Exposure Map'' and Figure 4-2 ``2019 Five-Year
forecast conditions Noise Exposure Map'' in the submission. The FAA has
determined that these maps for Portsmouth International Airport at
Pease are in compliance with applicable requirements. This
determination is effective on July 30, 2014.
    FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is
limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with
the procedures contained in Appendix A of FAR Part 150. Such
determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data,
information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility
program or to fund the implementation of that program.
    If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific
properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map
submitted under Section 103 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA
is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of
specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in
interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning,
for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of
Section 107 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the
ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local
government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way
under Part 150 or through FAA's review of a noise exposure map.
Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise
exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface
rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted the map or
with those public agencies and planning agencies with which
consultation is required under Section 103 of the Act. The FAA has
relied on the certification by the airport operator, under Section
150.21 of FAR Part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has
been accomplished.
    Copies of the noise exposure maps and of the FAA's evaluation of
the maps are available for examination at the following locations:
Pease Development Authority, 55 International Drive, Portsmouth, NH
03801.
Federal Aviation Administration, New England Region, Airports Division,
12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803.

    Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 30, 2014.
Richard P. Doucette,
Environmental Program Manager, FAA New England Region, Airports
Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-19042 Filed 8-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P