[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38256-38265]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15301]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0212, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_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-
2012-0212. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of this document,
``What Should I Consider as I Prepare my Comments for EPA?''
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, at<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, D.C. 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 February 29, 2012, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA) submitted a request to EPA to redesignate the Ohio portion of
the Parkersburg-Marietta, West Virginia-Ohio nonattainment area
(Washington County, Ohio) to attainment for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, and for EPA approval of Ohio's state
implementation plan (SIP) revision containing an emissions inventory
and a maintenance plan for the area.
    On December 2, 2011, EPA published a notice of final rulemaking
determining that air quality in the Parkersburg-Marietta area has met
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard (76 FR 75464). On November
30, 2012, EPA published a proposed rulemaking determining further that
the Ohio portion of the area has met the requirements for redesignation
under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA (77 FR 71383). In that rulemaking
EPA proposed several related actions. First, EPA proposed to approve
the request from OEPA to change the legal designation of the Ohio
portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also
proposed to approve Ohio's PM2.5 maintenance plan for the
Ohio portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area as a revision to the Ohio
SIP because the plan meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.
In addition, EPA proposed to approve 2006 emissions inventories for
primary PM2.5, NOX, and SO2,
documented in Ohio's February 29, 2012, PM2.5 redesignation
request submittal as satisfying the requirement in section 172(c)(3) of
the CAA for a comprehensive, current emission inventory. Finally, EPA
proposed a finding of insignificance of motor vehicle emissions for the
Ohio portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area (such that no motor
vehicle emission budgets for emissions of directly emitted
PM2.5 and NOX are necessary). EPA did not receive
adverse comments on the proposed rulemaking.
    Today, EPA is issuing a supplement to its November 30, 2012,
proposed rulemaking. This supplemental proposal addresses two separate
issues which affect the proposed redesignation and which have arisen
since the issuance of the proposal: a recent decision of the D.C.
Circuit, and the State of Ohio's supplemental submission of
comprehensive ammonia and VOC emissions inventories.
    On January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,
the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the ``Final Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final rule (73 FR
28321, May 16, 2008). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). In a supplemental
submission to EPA on April 30, 2013, Ohio submitted 2007/2008 ammonia
and VOC emissions inventories to supplement the emissions inventories
that had previously been submitted.

III. On what specific issues is EPA taking comments?

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

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

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

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

    EPA's view that, for purposes of evaluating the Ohio portion of the
Parkersburg-Marietta area's redesignation, the subpart 4 requirements
were not due at the time Ohio submitted the redesignation request is in
keeping with the EPA's interpretation of subpart 2 requirements for
subpart 1 ozone areas redesignated subsequent to the D.C. Circuit's
decision in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882
(D.C. Cir. 2006). In South Coast, the Court found that EPA was not
permitted to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely under
subpart 1, and held that EPA was required under the statute to
implement the standard under the ozone-specific requirements of subpart
2 as well. Subsequent to the South Coast decision, in evaluating and
acting upon redesignation requests for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
that were submitted to EPA for areas under subpart 1, EPA applied its
longstanding interpretation of the CAA that ``applicable
requirements'', for purposes of evaluating a redesignation, are those
that had been due at the time the redesignation request was submitted.
See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of Manitowoc County and Door County
Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 22050, April 27, 2010). In those
actions, EPA therefore did not consider subpart 2 requirements to be
``applicable'' for the purposes of evaluating whether the area should
be redesignated under section 107(d)(3)(E).
    EPA's interpretation derives from the provisions of CAA section
107(d)(3). Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an area to be
redesignated, a state must meet ``all requirements `applicable' to the
area under section 110 and part D''. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides
that the EPA must have fully approved the ``applicable'' SIP for the
area seeking redesignation. These two sections read together support
EPA's interpretation of ``applicable'' as only those requirements that
came due prior to submission of a complete redesignation request.
First, holding states to an ongoing obligation to adopt new CAA
requirements that arose after the state submitted its redesignation
request, in order to be redesignated, would make it problematic or
impossible for EPA to act on redesignation requests in accordance with
the 18-month deadline Congress set for EPA action in section
107(d)(3)(D). If ``applicable requirements'' were interpreted to be a
continuing flow of requirements with no reasonable limitation, states,
after submitting a redesignation request, would be forced continuously
to make additional SIP submissions that in turn would require EPA to
undertake further notice-and-comment rulemaking actions to act on those
submissions. This would create a regime of unceasing rulemaking that
would delay action on the redesignation request beyond the 18-month
timeframe provided by the Act for this purpose.
    Second, a fundamental premise for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment is that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS due
to emission reductions from existing controls. Thus, an area for which
a redesignation request has been submitted would have already attained
the NAAQS as a result of satisfying statutory requirements that came
due prior to the submission of the request. Absent a showing that
unadopted and unimplemented requirements are necessary for future
maintenance, it is reasonable to view the requirements applicable for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request as including only
those SIP requirements that have already come due. These are the
requirements that led to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, for
redesignation approval, that a state also satisfy additional SIP
requirements coming due after the state submits its complete
redesignation request, and while EPA is reviewing it, would compel the
state to do more than is necessary to attain the NAAQS, without a
showing that the additional requirements are necessary for maintenance.
    In the context of the Ohio portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta
area's redesignation, the timing and nature of the Court's January 4,
2013, decision in NRDC v. EPA compound the consequences of imposing
requirements that come due after the redesignation request is
submitted. While Ohio submitted its redesignation request on February
29, 2012, and EPA proposed to approve it on November 30, 2012, the
Court did not issue its decision remanding EPA's 1997 PM2.5
implementation rule concerning the applicability of the provisions of
subpart 4 until January 4, 2013.
    To require Ohio's fully-completed and long-pending redesignation
request to comply now with requirements of subpart 4 would be to give
retroactive effect to such requirements when the state had no notice
that it was required to meet them. The D.C. Circuit recognized the
inequity of this type of retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. Whitman,
285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),\2\

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

contingency measures that effectively supersede the requirements of
section 172(c)(9) for these areas.

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

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

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

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

Id. at 21, n.7.

    For a number of reasons, EPA believes that the Court's decision on
this aspect of subpart 4 does not preclude EPA's approval of Ohio's
redesignation request for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. First, while
the Court, citing section 189(e), stated that ``for a PM10
area governed by subpart 4, a precursor is `presumptively regulated,'''
the Court expressly declined to decide the specific challenge to EPA's
1997 PM2.5 implementation rule provisions regarding ammonia
and VOC as precursors. The Court had no occasion to reach whether and
how it was substantively necessary to regulate any specific precursor
in a particular PM2.5 nonattainment area, and did not
address what might be necessary for purposes of acting upon a
redesignation request.
    However, even if EPA takes the view that the requirements of
subpart 4 were deemed applicable at the time the state submitted the
redesignation request, and disregards the implementation rule's
rebuttable presumptions regarding ammonia and VOC as PM2.5
precursors, the regulatory consequence would be to consider the need
for regulation of all precursors from any sources in the area to
demonstrate attainment and to apply the section 189(e) provisions to
major stationary sources of precursors. In the case of the Ohio portion
of the Parkersburg-Marietta area, EPA believes that doing so would not
affect the approvability of the proposed redesignation of the area for
the 1997 PM2.5 standard. The entire Parkersburg-Marietta
area has attained the standard without any specific additional controls
of VOC and ammonia emissions from any sources in the area.
    Precursors in subpart 4 are specifically regulated under the
provisions of section 189(e), which requires, with important
exceptions, control requirements for major

stationary sources of PM10 precursors.\8\ Under subpart 1
and EPA's prior implementation rule, all major stationary sources of
PM2.5 precursors were subject to regulation, with the
exception of ammonia and VOC. Thus we must address here whether
additional controls of ammonia and VOC from major stationary sources
are required under section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to redesignate
the Ohio portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area for the 1997
PM2.5 standard. As explained below, we do not believe that
any additional controls of ammonia and VOC are required in the context
of this redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    In sum, even if Ohio were required to address precursors for the
Ohio portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area under subpart 4 rather
than under subpart 1, as interpreted in EPA's remanded PM2.5
implementation rule, EPA would still conclude that the area had met all
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation in accordance
with section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v).
d. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of Precursors
    With regard to the redesignation of the Ohio portion of the
Parkersburg-Marietta area, in evaluating the effect of the Court's
remand of EPA's implementation rule, which included presumptions
against consideration of VOC and ammonia as PM2.5
precursors, EPA in this supplemental proposal is also considering the
impact of the decision on the maintenance plan required under sections
175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To begin with, EPA notes that the area has
attained the 1997 PM2.5 standard and that the state has
shown that attainment of that standard is due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions.
    In its prior proposal notice for this action, EPA proposed to
determine that the state's maintenance plan shows continued maintenance
of the standard by tracking the levels of the precursors whose control
brought about attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standard in the
Ohio portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area. EPA therefore believes
that the only additional consideration related to the maintenance plan
requirements that results from the Court's January 4, 2013, decision is
that of assessing the potential role of VOC and ammonia in
demonstrating continued maintenance in this area. As explained below,
based upon documentation provided by the state and supporting
information, EPA believes that the maintenance plan for the Ohio
portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area need not include any
additional emission reductions of VOC or ammonia in order to provide
for continued maintenance of the standard.

    First, as noted above in EPA's discussion of section 189(e), VOC
emission levels in this area have historically been well controlled
under SIP requirements related to ozone and other pollutants. Second,
total ammonia emissions throughout the Ohio portion of the Parkersburg-
Marietta area are very low, estimated to be less than 1,300 tons per
year. See Table 4 below. This amount of ammonia emissions is especially
small in comparison to the total amounts of SO2,
NOX, and even direct PM2.5 emissions from sources
in the area. Third, as described below, available information shows
that VOC is expected to decrease over the maintenance period so as not
to interfere with or undermine the state's maintenance demonstration.
    Ohio's maintenance plan shows that emissions of direct
PM2.5, SO2, and NOX are projected to
decrease by 22.34 tons per year (tpy), 101,435.07 tpy, and 15,948.43
tpy, respectively, over the maintenance period. See Tables 1-3 below.
In addition, emissions inventories used in the regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS show that VOC
emissions are projected to decrease by 968.82 tpy, and that ammonia
emissions will increase by 87.45 tpy, between 2007 and 2020. See Table
4 below. While the RIA emissions inventories are only projected out to
2020, there is no reason to believe that the downward trend of VOC
emissions would not continue through 2022. While ammonia emissions are
projected to increase, given that the Parkersburg-Marietta area is
already attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS even with the current
level of emissions from sources in the area, the downward trend of
emissions from VOC inventories would be consistent with continued
attainment and even a small increase in ammonia emissions would not
cause a violation of the NAAQS. Indeed, projected emissions reductions
for the precursors that the state is addressing for purposes of the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS indicate that the area should continue to
attain the NAAQS following the precursor control strategy that the
state has already elected to pursue. Even if VOC emissions were to
increase unexpectedly, and ammonia emissions were to increase further
between 2020 and 2022, the overall emissions reductions projected in
direct PM2.5, SO2, and NOX would be
sufficient to offset any increases. For these reasons, EPA believes
that local emissions of all of the potential PM2.5
precursors will not increase to the extent that they will cause
monitored PM2.5 levels to violate the 1997 PM2.5
standard during the maintenance period.

  Table 1--Comparison of 2005, 2008, 2015, and 2022 Direct PM2.5 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the
                                  Ohio Portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta Area
                                            [Washington County, Ohio]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Direct PM2.5
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Sector                                                                                Net change
                                       2005            2008            2015            2022          2005-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................          472.37          471.72          470.21          468.70           -3.02
EGU \12\........................          384.81          392.62          407.19          418.67           26.05
Area............................          148.43          222.16          251.82          254.36           35.20
Non-road........................           47.29           41.33           27.71           14.06          -27.27
On-road \13\....................           90.45           75.52           41.68           25.22          -50.30
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................        1,143.35        1,203.35        1,198.61        1,181.01          -22.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Electric generating units.
\13\ Emissions projections for the on-road sector were generated using the MOVES model.

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

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

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

    Table 4--Comparison of 2007 and 2020 VOC and Ammonia Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Ohio Portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta Area
                                                             [Washington County, Ohio] \14\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                VOC                                           Ammonia
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Sector                                                             Net change                                      Net change
                                                               2007            2020          2007-2020         2007            2020          2007-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................          666.93          653.86          -13.07          567.76          660.88           93.12
Area....................................................        1,215.96        1,249.52           33.56          652.00          668.70           16.72
Non-road................................................          428.74          229.60         -199.14            0.63            0.68            0.05
On-road.................................................        1,207.30          417.13         -790.17           43.64           21.22          -22.42
Fires...................................................           83.68           83.68               0            5.82            5.82               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................        3,602.61        2,633.79         -968.82        1,269.85        1,357.30           87.45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ These emissions estimates were taken from the emissions inventories developed for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

    In addition, available air quality modeling analyses show continued
maintenance of the standard during the maintenance period. The current
air quality design value for the area is 12.3 micrograms per cubic
meter ([micro]g/m\3\) (based on 2009-11 air quality data), which is
well below the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [micro]g/m\3\.
Moreover, the modeling analysis conducted for the RIA for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS indicates that the design value for this area is
expected to significantly decline through 2020. In the RIA analysis,
the 2020 modeled design value for the Parkersburg-Marietta area is 9.2
[micro]g/m\3\. Given that all precursor emissions except ammonia are
projected to decrease through 2022, it is reasonable to conclude that
monitored PM2.5 levels in this area will also continue to
decrease through 2022.
    Thus, EPA believes that there is ample justification to conclude
that the Ohio portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area should be
redesignated, even taking into consideration the emissions of other
precursors potentially relevant to PM2.5. After
consideration of the D.C. Circuit's January 4, 2013, decision, and for
the reasons set forth in this supplemental notice, EPA continues to
propose approval of Ohio's maintenance plan and its request to
redesignate the Ohio portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area to
attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 annual standard.

B. Ammonia and VOC Comprehensive Emissions Inventories

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

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

 Table 5--Parkersburg-Marietta Area Ammonia and VOC Emissions (tpy) for
                       2007/2008 by Source Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Sector                         Ammonia      VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................................     527.75     623.19
Area..............................................     711.50   1,267.64
Non-road..........................................       0.63     452.83
On-road...........................................      36.43     945.66
Total.............................................   1,276.30   3,289.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Summary of Proposed Actions

    After fully considering the D.C. Circuit's decision in the NRDC v.
EPA on EPA's 1997 PM2.5 Implementation rule, EPA in this
supplemental notice is providing supplemental rationale for its action,
published November 12, 2012, which proposed to redesignate the Ohio
portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area to attainment for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, to approve the associated maintenance
plan, and to approve the state's emission inventory. EPA is concluding
that the D.C. Circuit decision regarding the applicability of the
requirements of subpart 4 of part D of title I of the CAA does not
change the applicable requirements for redesignation of the Parkersburg
area to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, in
this supplemental notice, EPA is addressing an enhanced 2007/2008
inventory that now addresses ammonia and VOC emissions, in conjunction
with the NOX, direct PM2.5 and SO2
inventories that EPA previously proposed to approve, thus providing
additional basis for EPA's prior proposal that Ohio has met the
comprehensive emissions inventory requirements of section 172(c)(3) of
the CAA for this area. EPA is seeking comment only on the issues raised
in its supplemental proposals, and is not re-opening comment on other
issues addressed in its prior proposal.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, these proposed actions do not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law and the CAA. For that
reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because a determination of attainment is an action that affects the
status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory
requirements on tribes, impact any existing sources of air pollution on
tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air
quality standards in tribal lands.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

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

    Dated: June 13, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-15301 Filed 6-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P