[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48087-48103]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18951]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0564; FRL-9844-2]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 26, 2012, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
submitted a request for EPA to redesignate the Canton-Massillon area
(Stark County), Ohio, nonattainment area to attainment of the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour standards for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5). EPA is proposing to grant Ohio's request. EPA is
proposing to determine that the Canton-Massillon area attains the 1997
annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, based on the
most recent three years of certified air quality data. EPA is proposing
to approve, as revisions to the Ohio state implementation plan (SIP),
the state's plan for maintaining the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or
standard) through 2025 for the area. EPA is proposing to approve the
2005 and 2008 emissions inventories for the Canton-Massillon area as
meeting the comprehensive emissions inventory requirement of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act). Ohio's maintenance plan submission includes a
motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) for the mobile source contribution
of PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) to the Canton-
Massillon area for transportation conformity purposes; EPA is proposing
to approve the MVEBs for 2015 and 2025 into the Ohio SIP for
transportation conformity purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0564, 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 (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.

    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section
(AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2012-0564. 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 the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Carolyn Persoon, Environmental
Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Persoon, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is
arranged as follows:

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

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

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

II. What actions is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to take several actions related to redesignation
of the Canton-Massillon area to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to determine that the
area is attaining the NAAQS for PM2.5, based on quality-
assured and state certified ambient air monitoring data for 2010-2012,
the most recent three years of quality-assured data for the area. EPA
is proposing to find that Ohio meets the requirements for redesignation
of the Canton-Massillon area to attainment of the 1997 and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
    Second, EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's annual PM2.5
maintenance plan for the Canton-Massillon area as a revision to the
Ohio SIP, including the MVEB for PM2.5 and NOX
emissions for the mobile source contribution of the Canton-Massillon
area.
    Finally, EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's emissions inventories
as satisfying the requirement in section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for a
current, accurate and comprehensive emission inventory. These emission
inventories include primary PM2.5, NOX and sulfur
dioxide (SO2) inventories included in its June 26, 2012,
initial submittal and 2007 emissions for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and ammonia inventories included in a supplemental submission to
EPA on April 29, 2013.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing to grant the request from the state of
Ohio to change the designation of Stark County (the Canton-Massillon
area) from nonattainment to attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. What is the background for these actions?

    Fine particulate pollution can be emitted directly from a source
(primary PM2.5) or formed secondarily through chemical
reactions in the atmosphere involving precursor pollutants emitted from
a variety of sources. Sulfates are a type of secondary particulate
formed from SO2 emissions from power plants

and industrial facilities. Nitrates, another common type of secondary
particulate, are formed from combustion emissions of NOX
from power plants, mobile sources and other combustion sources.
    The first air quality standards for PM2.5 were
promulgated on July 18, 1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated an annual
standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) of
ambient air, based on a three year average of the annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations at each monitoring site. In the same
rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour PM2.5 standard at 65
[micro]g/m\3\, based on a three year average of the 98th percentile of
24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at each monitoring site.
    On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, EPA published air quality area
designations for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard based on air
quality data for calendar years 2001-2003. In that rulemaking, EPA
designated the Canton-Massillon area as nonattainment for the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard.
    On October 17, 2006, at 71 FR 61144, EPA retained the annual
PM2.5 standard at 15 [micro]g/m\3\ (2006 annual
PM2.5 standard), but revised the 24-hour standard to 35
[micro]g/m\3\, based again on the three-year average of the annual 98th
percentile of the 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations. In response
to legal challenges of the 2006 annual PM2.5 standard, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit or Court) remanded this standard to EPA for further
consideration. See American Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork
Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). On
December 14, 2012, EPA finalized a rule revising the PM2.5
annual standard to 12 [micro]g/m\3\ based on current scientific
evidence regarding the protection of public health. Since the Canton-
Massillon area is designated as nonattainment for the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards, today's proposed action
addresses redesignation to attainment only for these standards.
    In this proposed redesignation, EPA takes into account the January
4, 2013, Court ruling in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, in
which 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).
    Also noted are the decisions of the D.C. Circuit regarding the
status of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). In the first of
the two Court decisions, the D.C. Circuit, on August 21, 2012, issued
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012),
which vacated and remanded CSAPR and ordered EPA to continue
administering the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) ``pending . . .
development of a valid replacement.'' EME Homer City at 38. The D.C.
Circuit denied all petitions for rehearing on January 24, 2013. On
August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. In
that decision, the Court also ordered EPA to continue administering
CAIR ``pending the promulgation of a valid replacement.'' EME Homer
City, 696 F.3d at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all petitions for
rehearing on January 24, 2013. EPA and other parties filed petitions
for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 24, 2013, the Supreme
Court granted certiorari and agreed to review the D.C. Circuit's
decision in EME Homer City. The Supreme Court's grant of certiorari, by
itself, does not alter the status of CAIR or CSAPR. At this time, CAIR
remains in place. EPA has determined that the status of both CSAPR and
CAIR do not affect the ability of the Canton-Massillon area to attain
or maintain the PM NAAQS, which is discussed in more detail in section
V.3.aii.

IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment?

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

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

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

1. Attainment

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Canton-Massillon area is
attaining the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based
upon the most recent three years of complete, certified and quality-
assured data. Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the annual
primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the
annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in accordance with
40 CFR part 50, appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\
at all monitoring sites in the area. Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR
50.13 and in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, the 24-hour
primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the 98th
percentile 24-hour concentration is less than or equal to 35 [micro]g/
m\3\.
    EPA has reviewed the ambient air quality monitoring data in the
Canton-Massillon area, consistent with the requirements contained at 40
CFR part 50. EPA's review focused on state certified data recorded in
the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database for the Canton-Massillon
PM2.5 nonattainment area for 2009-2011 and for 2010-2012.
    The Canton-Massillon area has two monitors located in Stark County,
Ohio. Preliminary calculations of design values for 2010-2012, the most
recent three full years of data, the two monitors had design values of
13.0 and 11.8 [micro]g/m\3\ for the 1997 annual standard, and 29 and 26
[micro]g/m\3\ for the 2006 24-hour standard. The monitors in the
Canton-Massillon area recorded complete data for 2010-2012 in
accordance with criteria set forth by EPA in 40 CFR part 50, appendix
N, where a complete year of air quality data comprises four calendar
quarters, with each quarter containing data with at least 75% capture
of the scheduled sampling days. Available data are considered to be
sufficient for comparison to the NAAQS if three consecutive complete
years of data exist.

  Table 1--The 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Design Values for the Canton-Massillon Monitors (in [micro]g/
                                                      m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Annual      24-Hour       Annual      24-Hour
            County                          Site                standard     standard     standard     standard
                                                               2009-2011    2009-2011    2010-2012    2010-2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stark, OH\1\..................                     391510017         13.4           30         13.0           29
Stark, OH.....................                     391510020         11.9           28         11.8           26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Design values for the site 391510017 were incomplete for 2009-2011 due to one quarter in 2009, substitution
  analysis for 2009-2011 showed attainment for the annual standard. 2010-2012 data was complete for both
  standards.

    EPA's review of these monitoring data supports EPA's determination
that the Canton-Massillon area has monitored attainment for the most
recent three years of data. Therefore, EPA proposes to determine that
the Canton-Massillon area is attaining the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standards.

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

    We believe that Ohio has met all currently applicable SIP
requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Canton-Massillon
area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We are
also proposing to find that the Ohio SIP meets all SIP requirements
currently applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D of
title I of the CAA, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). We are
proposing to find that all applicable requirements of the Ohio SIP for
purposes of redesignation have been met, in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As discussed below, in this action EPA is proposing
to approve Ohio's 2005 and 2008 emissions inventory, as well as the
supplemental submission to the emissions inventory of 2007 VOC and
ammonia data made on April 30, 2013, as meeting the section 172(c)(3)
comprehensive emissions inventory requirement. In making these proposed
determinations, we have ascertained which SIP requirements are
applicable for purposes of redesignation, and concluded that SIP
measures meeting those requirements are approved or will be approved by
the time of final rulemaking.
a. Ohio Has Met All Applicable Requirements for Purposes of
Redesignation of the Canton-Massillon Area Under Section 110 and Part D
of the CAA
i. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
    Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the general
requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the
implementation plan submitted by a state must have been adopted by the
state after reasonable public notice and hearing, and, among other
things, must: include enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the
requirements of the CAA; provide for establishment and operation of
appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary to
monitor ambient air quality; provide for implementation of a source
permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any
stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; include
provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and part D, New Source Review (NSR) permit
programs; include criteria for stationary source emission control
measures, monitoring and reporting; include provisions for air quality
modeling; and provide for public and local agency participation in
planning and emission control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain measures
to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another state. EPA believes that the requirements
linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation are the
relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular
area in the state. Thus, we believe that these requirements should not
be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation.
    Further, we believe that the other section 110 elements described
above that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and
not linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to
these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We
conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements that are
linked with a particular area's designation are the relevant measures
which we may consider in evaluating a redesignation request. This
approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of
conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation
purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-
53176, October 10, 1996) and (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and
Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See
also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour ozone
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19,
2001).
    We have reviewed the Ohio SIP and have concluded that it meets the
general SIP requirements under section 110 of the CAA to the extent
they are applicable for purposes of this redesignation. EPA has
previously approved provisions of Ohio's SIP addressing section 110
requirements, including provisions addressing particulate matter, at 40
CFR 52.1870, respectively). On December 5, 2007, and September 4, 2009,
Ohio made submittals addressing ``infrastructure SIP'' elements
required under CAA section 110(a)(2). EPA proposed approval of the
December 5, 2007, submittal on April 28, 2011, at 76 FR 23757, and
published final approval on July 14, 2011, at 76 FR 41075. The
requirements of section 110(a)(2), however, are statewide requirements
that are not linked to the PM2.5 nonattainment status of the
Canton-Massillon area. Therefore, EPA believes that these SIP elements
are not applicable requirements for purposes of review of the state's
PM2.5 redesignation request.
ii. Part D Requirements
    EPA is proposing to determine that, upon approval of the base year

emissions inventories discussed in section V.6. of this rulemaking, the
Ohio SIP will meet the SIP requirements for the Canton-Massillon area
applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D of the CAA.
    Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the CAA, sets
forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all
nonattainment areas.
(1). Subpart 1
(a). Section 172 Requirements.
    For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the
applicable section 172 SIP requirements for the Canton-Massillon area
are contained in section 172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of the
requirements contained in section 172 can be found in the General
Preamble for Implementation of title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).
    Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all nonattainment areas to
provide for the implementation of all Reasonably Achievable Control
Measures (RACM) as expeditiously as practicable and to provide for
attainment of the primary NAAQS. EPA interprets this requirement to
impose a duty on all nonattainment areas to consider all available
control measures and to adopt and implement such measures as are
reasonably available for implementation in each area as components of
the area's attainment demonstration. Because attainment has been
reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment,
and section 172(c)(1) requirements are no longer considered to be
applicable as long as the area continues to attain the standard until
redesignation. (40 CFR 51.1004(c).)
    The Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirement under section
172(c)(2) is defined as progress that must be made toward attainment.
This requirement is not relevant for purposes of redesignation because
the Canton-Massillon area has monitored attainment of the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. (General Preamble, 57 FR
13564). See also 40 CFR 51.918. In addition, because the Canton-
Massillon area has attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and is no longer subject to an RFP requirement,
the requirement to submit the section 172(c)(9) contingency measures is
not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Id.
    Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. Ohio
submitted a 2005 (nonattainment year) and 2008 (attainment year)
emissions inventories for SO2, NOX, and directly
emitted PM2.5 as part of their redesignation request, and
Ohio supplemented these inventories with emission inventories for VOC
and ammonia on April 29, 2013. As discussed below in section V.6, EPA
is approving both the 2005 and 2008 base year inventory as meeting the
section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirement for the Canton-
Massillon area.
    Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in an
area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the
construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources
anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA approved Ohio's current NSR
program on January 10, 2003 (68 FR 1366). Nonetheless, since PSD
requirements will apply after redesignation, the area need not have a
fully-approved NSR program for purposes of this redesignation, provided
that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR.
A detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from
Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated
October 14, 1994, entitled, ''Part D New Source Review Requirements for
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' Ohio has demonstrated
that the Canton-Massillon area will be able to maintain the standard
without part D NSR in effect; therefore, the state need not have a
fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the
redesignation request. The state's PSD program will become effective in
the Canton-Massillon area upon redesignation to attainment. See
rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995);
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996);
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids,
Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).
    Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures
necessary to provide for attainment of the standard. Because attainment
has been reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for
attainment.
    Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we believe the Ohio's
SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for purposes
of redesignation.
    (b) Section 176(c)(4)(D) Conformity SIP Requirements.
    The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation
plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under title
23 of the U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act (transportation
conformity), as well as to all other Federally-supported or funded
projects (general conformity).
    Section 176(c) of the CAA was amended by provisions contained in
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which was signed into law on August 10,
2005 (Pub. L. 109-59). Among the changes Congress made to this section
of the CAA were streamlined requirements for state transportation
conformity SIPs. State transportation conformity regulations must be
consistent with Federal conformity regulations and address three
specific requirements related to consultation, enforcement and
enforceability. EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the
transportation conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes
of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) for two
reasons.
    First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the
transportation conformity provisions of the CAA continues to apply to
areas after redesignation to attainment since such areas would be
subject to a section 175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA's Federal
conformity rules require the performance of conformity analyses in the
absence of Federally-approved state rules. Therefore, because areas are
subject to the transportation conformity requirements regardless of
whether they are redesignated to attainment and, because they must
implement conformity under Federal rules if state rules are not yet
approved, EPA believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as
not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. See
Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this
interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 62749-62750 (Dec. 7, 1995)
(Tampa, Florida). Ohio has an approved transportation conformity SIP
(72 FR 20945). Ohio is in the process of updating its approved
transportation conformity SIP, and EPA will review its provisions when
they are submitted.
(2). Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding
PM2.5 Implementation under Subpart 4
(a). Background
    As discussed above, on January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit

remanded to EPA the ``Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation
Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the ``Implementation of the
New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008)
(collectively, ``1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule''). 706 F.3d
428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court found that EPA erred in implementing
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general implementation
provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA, rather than
the particulate-matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of part D of
title I. Although the Court's ruling did not directly address the 2006
PM2.5 standard, EPA is taking into account the Court's
position on subpart 4 and the 1997 PM2.5 standard in
evaluating redesignations for the 2006 standard.
(b). Proposal on This Issue
    EPA is proposing to determine that the Court's January 4, 2013,
decision does not prevent EPA from redesignating the Canton-Massillon
area to attainment. Even in light of the Court's decision,
redesignation for this area is appropriate under the CAA and EPA's
longstanding interpretations of the CAA's provisions regarding
redesignation. EPA first 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 then shows that, even if EPA applies the subpart 4
requirements to the Canton-Massillon 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.
(i). Applicable Requirements for Purposes of Evaluating the
Redesignation Request
    With respect to the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the
Court's January 4, 2013, ruling rejected EPA's reasons for implementing
the PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with the provisions of
subpart 1, and remanded that matter to EPA, so that it could address
implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of
part D of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For the purposes of
evaluating Ohio's redesignation request for the area, to the extent
that implementation under subpart 4 would impose additional
requirements for areas designated nonattainment, EPA believes that
those requirements are not ``applicable'' for the purposes of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not required to consider subpart
4 requirements with respect to the Canton-Massillon redesignation.
Under its longstanding interpretation of the CAA, EPA has interpreted
section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold matter, that the part D
provisions which are ``applicable'' and which must be approved in order
for EPA to redesignate an area include only those which came due prior
to a state's submittal of a complete redesignation request. See
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni memorandum). See also
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) NAAQS on or after November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from
Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air and Radiation,
September 17, 1993 (Shapiro memorandum); Final Redesignation of
Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 12465-66, March 7, 1995); Final
Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 FR 25418, 25424-27, May 12,
2003); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding
EPA's redesignation rulemaking applying this interpretation and
expressly rejecting Sierra Club's view that the meaning of
``applicable'' under the statute is ``whatever should have been in the
plan at the time of attainment rather than whatever actually was in the
plan and already implemented or due at the time of attainment'').\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 Canton-Massillon
redesignation, the subpart 4 requirements were not due at the time the
state submitted the redesignation request is in keeping with the EPA's
interpretation of subpart 2 requirements for subpart 1 ozone areas
redesignated subsequent to the D.C. Circuit's decision in South Coast
Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In South
Coast, the Court found that EPA was not permitted to implement the 1997
8-hour ozone standard solely under subpart 1, and held that EPA was
required under the statute to implement the standard under the ozone-
specific requirements of subpart 2 as well. Subsequent to the South
Coast decision, in evaluating and acting upon redesignation requests
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard that were submitted to EPA for areas
under subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding interpretation of the CAA
that ``applicable requirements'', for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation, are those that had been due at the time the
redesignation request was submitted. See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation
of Manitowoc County and Door County Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047,
22050, April 27, 2010). In those actions, EPA therefore did not
consider subpart 2 requirements to be ``applicable'' for the purposes
of evaluating whether the area should be redesignated under section
107(d)(3)(E).
    EPA's interpretation derives from the provisions of CAA Section
107(d)(3). Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an area to be
redesignated, a state must meet ``all requirements `applicable' to the
area under section 110 and part D''. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides
that the EPA must have fully approved the ``applicable'' SIP for the
area seeking redesignation. These two sections read together support
EPA's interpretation of ``applicable'' as only those requirements that
came due prior to submission of a complete redesignation request.
First, holding states to an ongoing obligation to adopt new CAA
requirements that arose after the state submitted its redesignation
request, in order to be redesignated, would make it problematic or
impossible for EPA to act on redesignation requests in accordance with
the 18-month deadline Congress set for EPA action in section
107(d)(3)(D). If ``applicable requirements'' were interpreted to be a
continuing flow of requirements with no reasonable limitation, states,
after submitting a redesignation request, would be forced continuously
to make additional SIP submissions that in turn would require EPA to
undertake further notice-and-comment rulemaking actions to act on those
submissions. This would create a regime of unceasing rulemaking that
would delay action on the redesignation request beyond the 18-month
timeframe provided by the CAA for this purpose.

    Second, a fundamental premise for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment is that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS due
to emission reductions from existing controls. Thus, an area for which
a redesignation request has been submitted would have already attained
the NAAQS as a result of satisfying statutory requirements that came
due prior to the submission of the request. Absent a showing that
unadopted and unimplemented requirements are necessary for future
maintenance, it is reasonable to view the requirements applicable for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request as including only
those SIP requirements that have already come due. These are the
requirements that led to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, for
redesignation approval, that a state also satisfy additional SIP
requirements coming due after the state submits its complete
redesignation request, and while EPA is reviewing it, would compel the
state to do more than is necessary to attain the NAAQS, without a
showing that the additional requirements are necessary for maintenance.
    In the context of this redesignation, the timing and nature of the
Court's January 4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. EPA compound the
consequences of imposing requirements that come due after the
redesignation request is submitted. The state submitted its
redesignation request on July 5, 2011, but the Court did not issue its
decision remanding EPA's 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule
concerning the applicability of the provisions of subpart 4 until
January 2013.
    To require the state's fully-completed and pending redesignation
request to comply now with requirements of subpart 4 that the Court
announced only in January, 2013, would be to give retroactive effect to
such requirements when the state had no notice that it was required to
meet them. The D.C. Circuit 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 the state of Ohio
by rejecting its redesignation request for an area that is already
attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standard and that met all
applicable requirements known to be in effect at the time of the
request. For EPA now to reject the redesignation request solely because
the state did not expressly address subpart 4 requirements of which it
had no notice, would inflict the same unfairness condemned by the Court
in Sierra Club v. Whitman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

(ii). Subpart 4 Requirements and Ohio Redesignation Request
    Even if EPA were to take the view that the Court's January 4, 2013,
decision requires that, in the context of pending redesignations,
subpart 4 requirements were due and in effect at the time the state
submitted its redesignation request, EPA proposes to determine that the
Canton-Massillon area still qualifies for redesignation to attainment.
As explained below, EPA believes that the redesignation request for the
Canton-Massillon 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 Canton-Massillon 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). The subpart 1
requirements include, among other things, provisions for attainment
demonstrations, RACM, 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 Canton-Massillon area to be a ``moderate''
PM2.5 nonattainment area. Under section 188 of the CAA, all
areas designated nonattainment areas under subpart 4 would initially be
classified by operation of law as ``moderate'' nonattainment areas, and
would remain moderate nonattainment areas unless and until EPA
reclassifies the area as a ``serious'' nonattainment area. Accordingly,
EPA believes that it is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the
potential impact of subpart 4 requirements to those that would be
applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of
subpart 4 apply to moderate nonattainment areas and include the
following: (1) An approved permit program for construction of new and
modified major stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); (2) an
attainment demonstration (section 189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for
RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) quantitative milestones
demonstrating RFP toward attainment by the applicable attainment date
(section 189(c)).
    The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section
189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit provisions
requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM10, without adding
to them. Consequently, EPA believes that section 189(a)(1)(A) does not
itself impose for redesignation purposes any additional requirements
for moderate areas beyond those contained in subpart 1.\4\ In any
event, in the context of redesignation, EPA has long relied on the
interpretation that a fully approved nonattainment new source review
program is not considered an applicable requirement for redesignation,
provided the area can maintain the standard with a PSD program after
redesignation. A detailed rationale for this view is

described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New
Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.'' See also rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-
12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458,
20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October
23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21,
1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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,\5\ 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, milestone
requirements, contingency measures.

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

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

    [t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring
RFP and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements no
longer apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible
for redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans .
. . provides specific requirements for contingency measures that
effectively 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 \6\
and thus are now past due, those requirements do not apply to an area
that is attaining the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standard, for the
purpose of evaluating a pending request to redesignate the area to
attainment. EPA has consistently enunciated this interpretation of
applicable requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) since the General
Preamble was published more than twenty years ago. Courts have
recognized the scope of EPA's authority to interpret ``applicable
requirements'' in the redesignation context. See Sierra Club v. EPA,
375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As EPA has explained above, we do not believe that the
Court's January 4, 2013 decision should be interpreted so as to
impose these requirements on the states retroactively. Sierra Club
v. Whitman, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, even outside the context of redesignations, EPA has
viewed the obligations to submit attainment-related SIP planning
requirements of subpart 4 as inapplicable for areas that EPA determines
are attaining the standard. EPA's prior ``Clean Data Policy''
rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also governed by the
requirements of subpart 4, explain EPA's reasoning. They describe the
effects of a determination of attainment on the attainment-related SIP
planning requirements of subpart 4. See ``Determination of Attainment
for Coso Junction Nonattainment Area,'' (75 FR 27944, May 19, 2010).
See also Coso Junction proposed PM10 redesignation, (75 FR
36023, 36027, June 24, 2010); Proposed and Final Determinations of
Attainment for San Joaquin Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 40954-55,
July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 63641, 63643-47 October 30, 2006). In short,
EPA in this context has also long concluded that to require states to
meet superfluous SIP planning requirements is not necessary and not
required by the CAA, so long as those areas continue to attain the
relevant NAAQS.
    Elsewhere in this notice, EPA proposes to determine that the area
has attained the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards. Under its
longstanding interpretation, EPA is proposing to determine here that
the area meets the attainment-related plan requirements of subparts 1
and 4.
    Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude that the requirements to submit
an attainment demonstration under 189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination
under section 172(c)1 and section 189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration
under 189(c)(1), and contingency measure requirements under section
172(c)(9) are satisfied for purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request.
(iii). Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5 Precursors
    The D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA remanded to EPA the two rules at
issue in the case with instructions to EPA to re-promulgate them
consistent with the requirements of subpart 4. EPA in this section
addresses the Court's opinion with respect to PM2.5
precursors. While past implementation of subpart 4 for PM10
has allowed for control of PM10 precursors such as
NOX from major stationary, mobile, and area sources in order
to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, CAA section
189(e) specifically provides that control requirements for major
stationary sources of direct PM10 shall also apply to
PM10 precursors from those sources, except where EPA
determines that major stationary sources of such precursors ``do not
contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the
standard in the area.''
    EPA's 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule, remanded by the
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 its proposed
redesignation of the Canton-Massillon area is consistent with the
Court's decision on this aspect of subpart 4. First, while the Court,
citing section 189(e), stated that ``for a PM10 area
governed by subpart 4, a precursor is `presumptively regulated,''' the
Court expressly declined to decide the specific challenge to EPA's 1997
PM2.5 implementation rule provisions regarding ammonia and
VOC as precursors. The Court had no occasion to reach whether and how
it was substantively necessary to regulate any specific precursor in a
particular PM2.5 nonattainment area, and did not address
what might be necessary for purposes of acting upon a redesignation
request.
    However, even if EPA takes the view that the requirements of
subpart 4 were deemed applicable at the time the state submitted the
redesignation request, and disregards the implementation rule's
rebuttable presumptions regarding ammonia and VOC as PM2.5
precursors, (and any similar provisions reflected in the guidance for
the 2006 PM2.5 standard) the regulatory consequence would be
to consider the need for regulation of all precursors from any sources
in the area to demonstrate attainment and to apply the section 189(e)
provisions to major stationary sources of precursors. In the case of
Canton-Massillon, EPA believes that doing so is consistent with
proposing redesignation of the area for the 1997 PM2.5
standard. The Canton-Massillon area has attained both standards without
any specific additional controls of VOC and ammonia emissions from any
sources in the area.
    Precursors in subpart 4 are specifically regulated under the
provisions of section 189(e), which requires, with important
exceptions, control requirements for major stationary sources of
PM10 precursors.\7\ Under subpart 1 and EPA's prior
implementation rule, all major stationary sources of PM2.5
precursors were subject to regulation, with the exception of ammonia
and VOC. Thus we must address here whether additional controls of
ammonia and VOC from major stationary sources are required under
section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to redesignate the area for the
1997 PM2.5 standard. As explained below, we do not believe
that any additional controls of ammonia and VOC are required in the
context of this redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for purposes of
demonstrating attainment as expeditiously as practicable, a state is
required to evaluate all economically and technologically feasible
control measures for direct PM emissions and precursor emissions,
and adopt those measures that are deemed reasonably available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the General Preamble, EPA discusses its approach to implementing
section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538-13542. With regard to precursor
regulation under section 189(e), the General Preamble explicitly stated
that control of VOCs under other Act requirements may suffice to
relieve a state from the need to adopt precursor controls under section
189(e) (57 FR 13542). EPA in this proposal proposes to determine that
the SIP has met the provisions of section 189(e) with respect to
ammonia and VOCs as precursors. This proposed determination is based on
our findings that (1) the Canton-Massillon 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.\8\ In the alternative, EPA proposes to
determine that, under the express exception provisions of section
189(e), and in the context of the redesignation of the area, which is
attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, at present ammonia
and VOC precursors from major stationary sources do not contribute
significantly to levels exceeding the 1997 PM2.5 standard in
the Canton-Massillon area. See 57 FR 13539-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Canton-Massillon area has reduced VOC emissions through
the implementation of various SIP approved VOC control programs and
various on-road and nonroad motor vehicle control programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule
provisions in 40 CFR 51.1002 were not directed at evaluation of
PM2.5 precursors in the context of redesignation, but at SIP
plans and control measures required to bring a nonattainment area into
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. By contrast,
redesignation to attainment primarily requires the area to have already
attained due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and to
demonstrate that controls in place can continue to maintain the
standard. Thus, even if we regard the Court's January 4, 2013, decision
as calling for ``presumptive regulation'' of ammonia and VOC for
PM2.5 under the attainment planning provisions of subpart 4,
those provisions in and of themselves do not require additional
controls of these precursors for an area that already qualifies for
redesignation. Nor does EPA believe that requiring Ohio to address
precursors differently than they have already would result in a
substantively different outcome.
    Although, as EPA has emphasized, its consideration here of
precursor requirements under subpart 4 is in the context of a
redesignation to attainment, EPA's existing interpretation of subpart 4
requirements with respect to precursors in attainment plans for
PM10 contemplates that states may develop attainment plans
that regulate only those precursors that are necessary for purposes of
attainment in the area in question, i.e., states may determine that
only certain precursors need be regulated for attainment and control
purposes.\9\ Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of
subpart 4 for PM10.\10\ EPA believes that application of
this approach to PM2.5 precursors under subpart 4 is
reasonable. Because the Canton-Massillon area has already attained the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with its current approach to
regulation of PM2.5 precursors, EPA believes that it is
reasonable to conclude in the context of this redesignation that there
is no need to revisit the attainment control strategy with respect to
the treatment of precursors. Even if the Court's decision is construed
to impose an obligation, in evaluating this redesignation request, to
consider additional precursors under subpart 4, it would not affect
EPA's approval here of Ohio's request for redesignation of the Canton-
Massillon area. In the context of a redesignation, the area has shown
that it has attained both standards. Moreover, the state has shown and
EPA is proposing to determine that attainment in this area is due to
permanent and enforceable emissions reductions on all precursors
necessary to provide for continued attainment. It follows logically
that no further control of additional precursors is necessary.
Accordingly, EPA does not view the January 4, 2013, decision of the
Court as precluding redesignation of the Canton-Massillon area to
attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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).
    \10\ 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
Canton-Massillon area under subpart 4 rather than under subpart 1, as
interpreted in EPA's remanded PM2.5 implementation rule, EPA
would still conclude that the area had met all applicable requirements
for purposes of

redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v).
b. The Canton-Massillon Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
    Upon final approval of Ohio's comprehensive emissions inventories,
EPA will have fully approved the Ohio SIP for the Canton-Massillon area
under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for
purposes of redesignation to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 standard. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals
in approving a redesignation request (See page 3 of the Calcagni
Memorandum; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144
F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir.
2001)), plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with
a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since
the passage of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has adopted and submitted, and EPA
has fully approved, provisions addressing various required SIP elements
under particulate matter standards. In this action, as discussed in
section V.6 EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's base year emissions
inventories for the Canton-Massillon area as meeting the requirement of
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard.
c. Nonattainment Requirements
    Under section 172, states with nonattainment areas must submit
plans providing for timely attainment and meeting a variety of other
requirements. On July 16, 2008, Ohio submitted a state-wide attainment
demonstration for PM2.5, including the Canton-Massillon
area. However, EPA's determination that the area attained the 1997
PM2.5 annual and 2006 24-hour standards (76 FR 56641; 77 FR
28264, respectively) suspended the requirement to submit certain
planning SIPs related to attainment, including attainment demonstration
requirements, the Reasonably Achievable Control Technology (RACT)-RACM
requirement of section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, the RFP and attainment
demonstration requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and (6) and 182(b)(1)
of the CAA and the requirement for contingency measures of section
172(c)(9) of the CAA).
    As a result, the only remaining requirement under section 172 to be
considered is the emissions inventory required under section 172(c)(3).
As discussed in section V.6, EPA is proposing to approve the inventory
that Ohio submitted as part of its maintenance plan as satisfying this
requirement.
    No SIP provisions applicable for redesignation of the Canton-
Massillon area are currently disapproved, conditionally approved or
partially approved. If EPA approves Ohio's Canton-Massillon area
PM2.5 emissions inventories as proposed, Ohio will have a
fully approved SIP for all requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation.

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

    EPA believes that Ohio has demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the Canton-Massillon area is due to permanent
and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation
of the SIP, Federal measures and other state-adopted measures.
    In making this demonstration, Ohio has calculated the change in
emissions between 2005, one of the years used to designate the Canton-
Massillon area as nonattainment, and 2008, one of the years the Canton-
Massillon area monitored attainment. The reduction in emissions and the
corresponding improvement in air quality over this time period can be
attributed to a number of regulatory control measures that the Canton-
Massillon area and contributing areas have implemented in recent years.
a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls Implemented
    The following is a discussion of permanent and enforceable measures
that have been implemented in the area:
i. Federal Emission Control Measures
    Reductions in fine particle precursor emissions have occurred
statewide and in upwind areas as a result of Federal emission control
measures, with additional emission reductions expected to occur in the
future. Federal emission control measures include the following:
    Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur
Standards. These emission control requirements result in lower
NOX and SO2 emissions from new cars and light
duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles. The Federal rules were
phased in between 2004 and 2009. The EPA has estimated that, by the end
of the phase-in period, new vehicles will emit the following
percentages less NOX: Passenger cars (light duty vehicles)--
77%; light duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility vehicles--86%;
and, larger sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks--69% to
95%. EPA expects fleet wide average emissions to come to decline by
similar percentages as new vehicles replace older vehicles. The Tier 2
standards also reduced the sulfur content of gasoline to 30 parts per
million (ppm) beginning in January 2006. Most gasoline sold in Ohio
prior to January 2006 had a sulfur content of about 500 ppm.
    Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. EPA issued this rule in July 2000.
This rule includes standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel
fuel, which went into effect in 2004. A second phase took effect in
2007 which reduced fine particle emissions from heavy-duty highway
engines and further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to
15 ppm. The total program is estimated to achieve a 90% reduction in
direct PM2.5 emissions and a 95% reduction in NOX
emissions for these new engines using low sulfur diesel, compared to
existing engines using higher sulfur content diesel. The reduction in
fuel sulfur content also yielded an immediate reduction in sulfate
particle emissions from all diesel vehicles.
    Nonroad Diesel Rule. In May 2004, EPA promulgated a new rule for
large nonroad diesel engines, such as those used construction,
agriculture and mining equipment, to be phased in between 2008 and
2014. The rule also reduces the sulfur content in nonroad diesel fuel
by over 99%. Prior to 2006, nonroad diesel fuel averaged approximately
3,400 ppm sulfur. This rule limited nonroad diesel sulfur content to
500 ppm by 2006, with a further reduction to 15 ppm by 2010. The
combined engine and fuel rules will reduce NOX and PM
emissions from large nonroad diesel engines by over 90%, compared to
current nonroad engines using higher sulfur content diesel. It is
estimated that compliance with this rule will cut NOX
emissions from nonroad diesel engines by up to 90%. This rule achieved
some emission reductions by 2008 and was fully implemented by 2010. The
reduction in fuel sulfur content also yielded an immediate reduction in
sulfate particle emissions from all diesel vehicles.
    Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engine and Recreational Engine
Standards. In November 2002 EPA promulgated emission standards for
groups of previously unregulated nonroad engines. These engines include
large spark-ignition engines such as those used in forklifts and
airport ground-service equipment; recreational vehicles using spark-
ignition engines such as off-

highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles; and
recreational marine diesel engines. Emission standards from large
spark-ignition engines were implemented in two tiers, with Tier 1
starting in 2004 and Tier 2 in 2007. Recreational vehicle emission
standards are being phased in from 2006 through 2012. Marine Diesel
engine standards were phased in from 2006 through 2009. With full
implementation of the nonroad spark-ignition engine and recreational
engine standards, an 80% reduction in NOX expected by 2020.
Some of these emission reductions occurred by the 2008-2010 period used
to demonstrate attainment, and additional emission reductions will
occur during the maintenance period.
ii. Control Measures in Contributing Areas
    NOX SIP Call. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA
issued a NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and
22 states to reduce emissions of NOX. Affected states were
required to comply with Phase I of the SIP Call beginning in 2004, and
with Phase II beginning in 2007. Emission reductions resulting from
regulations developed in response to the NOX SIP Call are
permanent and enforceable.
    CAIR. The Canton-Massillon area has demonstrated that attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be maintained with or without the
implementation of CAIR or CSAPR. The Canton-Massillon area has no local
electric generating units (EGUs) that would be impacted by CAIR or
CSAPR, and in fact, the area's emissions are dominated by mobile
sources (Table 2). Mobile sources in the area comprise 85% of the
NOX emissions, 38% of the SO2 emission, and 46%
of the PM2.5 emissions from the base-year inventory. In
addition, regional emissions will not affect the attainment or
maintenance of the Canton-Massillon area. Modeling conducted by EPA
during the CSAPR rulemaking process demonstrates that the counties in
the Canton-Massillon PM2.5 nonattainment area will have
concentrations below the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standards in both 2012 and 2014 without taking into
account emissions reductions from CAIR or CSAPR. See ``Air Quality
Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document'', App. B. This modeling
is available in the docket for this proposed redesignation action.
    Moreover, in its August 2012 decision, the Court also ordered EPA
to continue implementing CAIR. See EME Homer City Generation LP v. EPA,
696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In sum, neither the current status of CAIR
nor the current status of CSAPR affects any of the criteria for
proposed approval of this redesignation request for the Canton-
Massillon area.
iii. Consent Decrees
    On December 31, 2012, the Marathon petroleum refinery in Canton was
required by a Federal consent decree to shut down an open waste gas
flare, resulting in reductions of VOCs, SO2 and direct PM.
The Canton refinery is also required under this consent decree to meet
specific limits on their capped gas flare that must be incorporated
into the permanent construction permit. These emission reductions will
add to continued reductions for other sources in the area throughout
the maintenance period. In a 2011 state consent decree, Akron Iron &
Metal, LLC, in Canton, added baghouse controls resulting in reductions
of direct PM in the Canton area.
b. Emission Reductions
    Ohio developed emissions inventories for NOX, direct
PM2.5 and SO2 for 2005, one of the years used to
designate the area as nonattainment, and 2008, one of the years the
Canton-Massillon area monitored attainment of the standard.
    Area source emissions the Canton-Massillon area for 2005 were taken
from periodic emissions inventories.\11\ These 2005 area source
emission estimates were extrapolated to 2008. Source growth factors
were supplied by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Periodic emission inventories are derived by states every
three years and reported to the EPA. These periodic emission
inventories are required by the Federal Consolidated Emissions
Reporting Rule, codified at 40 CFR Subpart A. EPA revised these and
other emission reporting requirements in a final rule published on
December 17, 2008, at 73 FR 76539.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonroad mobile source emissions were extrapolated from nonroad
mobile source emissions reported in EPA's 2005 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI). Contractors were employed by LADCO to estimate
emissions for commercial marine vessels and railroads.
    On-road mobile source emissions were calculated using EPA's mobile
source emission factor model, MOVES2010a, in conjunction with
transportation model results developed by the Stark County Area
Transportation Study (SCATS).
    All emissions estimates discussed below were documented in the
submittal and appendices of Ohio's redesignation request submittal from
April 16, 2012, and their April 30, 2013, supplemental submittal. For
these data and additional emissions inventory data, the reader is
referred to EPA's digital docket for this rule, http://www.regulations.gov, which includes digital copies of Ohio's submittal.
    Emissions data in tpy for the Canton-Massillon area are shown in
Tables 2 and 3, below.

   Table 2--Summary of 2005 Emissions of SO2, NOX, and Directly Emitted PM2.5 for the Canton-Massillon Area by
                                                   Source Type
                                                      [tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        SO2             NOX            PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point (EGU).....................................................            0.00            0.00            0.00
Non-EGU.........................................................          553.14        1,129.41          380.10
On-road.........................................................          191.33       14,004.65          433.47
Nonroad.........................................................          261.01        2,801.96          231.64
Area............................................................          163.72        1,313.88          370.87
MAR.............................................................           38.35          537.27           14.58
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Canton-Massillon......................................        1,207.55       19,787.17        1,430.66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table 3--Comparison of PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 Emissions From a Nonattainment Year (2005) and Emissions for an
                              Attainment Year (2008) for the Canton-Massillon Area
                                                      [tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Net change
                                                                       2005            2008         (2005-2008)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5...........................................................        1,430.66        1,257.11         -173.55
NOX.............................................................       19,787.17       16,227.26       -3,559.91
SO2.............................................................        1,207.55          906.79         -300.76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 shows that the Canton-Massillon area shows a decrease in
direct PM2.5 emissions by 173.55 tons, the area reduced
NOX emissions by 3,559.91tons and SO2 emissions
by 300.76 tons between 2005, a nonattainment year, and 2008, an
attainment year. Ohio did not attribute attainment to any changes in
VOC or ammonia emissions; instead to changes in SO2,
NOX, and PM2.5 emissions. EPA agrees that
emission reductions from sources of SO2, NOX, and
PM2.5 brought the area into attainment, with most emission
reductions occurring from Federal mobile source engine standards and
fuel standards (Table 2 and 3). Based on the information summarized
above, Ohio has adequately demonstrated that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions.

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

    In conjunction with Ohio's request to redesignate the Canton-
Massillon nonattainment area to attainment status, Ohio has submitted a
SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the area through 2025.
a. What is required in a maintenance plan?
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued
attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after EPA
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after
redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan which
demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for ten
years following the initial ten year maintenance period. To address the
possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must
contain contingency measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA
deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future annual
PM2.5 violations.
    The Calcagni Memorandum provides additional guidance on the content
of a maintenance plan. The memorandum states that a maintenance plan
should address the following items: the attainment emissions
inventories, a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for the
ten years of the maintenance period, a commitment to maintain the
existing monitoring network, factors and procedures to be used for
verification of continued attainment of the NAAQS and a contingency
plan to prevent or correct future violations of the NAAQS.
b. Attainment Inventory
    Ohio developed emissions inventories for NOX, direct
PM2.5 and SO2 for 2008, one of the years in the
period during which the Canton-Massillon area monitored attainment of
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, as
described previously. The attainment levels of emissions for the area
are summarized in Tables 3, above.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
    Along with the redesignation request, Ohio submitted a revision to
its PM2.5 SIP to include a maintenance plan for the Canton-
Massillon area, as required by section 175A of the CAA. Section 175A
requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment to submit a SIP
revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the area ``for
at least 10 years after the redesignation.'' EPA has interpreted this
as a showing of maintenance ``for a period of ten years following
redesignation.'' Calcagni Memorandum, p.9. Where the emissions
inventory method of showing maintenance is used, its purpose is to show
that emissions during the maintenance period will not increase over the
attainment year inventory. Calcagni Memorandum, pp. 9-10.
    Ohio's submission uses emissions inventory projections for the
years 2015 and 2025 to demonstrate maintenance for the Canton-Massillon
area. The projected emissions were estimated by Ohio, with assistance
from LADCO and SCATS using the MOVES2010a model. The 2015 interim year
emissions were projected using estimates based on the 2009 and 2018
LADCO modeling inventory, using LADCO's growth factors, for all
sectors. The 2025 maintenance year inventory is based on emissions
estimates from the 2018 LADCO modeling. Table 4 shows the 2008
attainment base year emission estimates and the 2015 and 2025 emission
projections for NOX, direct PM2.5 and
SO2 for the Canton-Massillon area that Ohio provided in its
April 16, 2012 submission.

   Table 4--Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2025 NOX, Direct PM2.5 and SO2 Emission Totals (tpy) for the Canton-
                                                 Massillon Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        SO2             NOX            PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 (baseline).................................................          906.79       16,227.26        1,257.11
2015............................................................          812.89       11,001.32        1,088.72
2025............................................................          795.30        7,822.67          912.92
Change 2008-2025................................................         -111.49       -8,404.59         -344.19
                                                                             12%             52%             27%
                                                                        decrease        decrease        decrease
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 4 shows that the Canton-Massillon area reduced NOX
emissions by 8,404.59 tpy between 2008 and the maintenance projection
to 2025, direct PM2.5 emissions by 344.19 tpy, and reduced
SO2 emissions by 111.49 tpy between 2008 and 2025.
    EPA in this proposal is also considering the effect of the Court's
remand of EPA's implementation rule, in particular the remand of
presumptions against consideration of VOC and ammonia as
PM2.5 precursors, on requirements for the maintenance plan
mandated under sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To begin with, EPA
notes that the area has attained the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
standard and that the state has shown that attainment of those
standards is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions.
    EPA proposes to determine that the state's maintenance plan shows
continued maintenance of the standard by tracking the levels of the
precursors whose control brought about attainment of the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standard in the Canton-Massillon 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
Canton-Massillon 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 Canton-Massillon area are low,
estimated to be less than 1,700 tpy. See Table 5 below. This amount of
ammonia emissions appears especially small in comparison to the total
amounts of NOX, and VOCs from sources in the area. Both VOC
and NOX are also well controlled in the Canton-Massillon
area and have decreased due to permanent and enforceable measures such
as RACT rules controlling stationary sources previously approved (75 FR
65572; OAC 3745-17; OAC 3745-110). Additional significant reductions
resulted from Federal mobile source standards discussed above,
accounting for 3,536 tpy of the NOX reductions in the area
and 665 tpy of PM2.5 reductions between 2005 and 2008.
Future compliance with mobile source standards is also projected to
reduce NOX by approximately 700 tpy and PM2.5 by
approximately 200 tpy between 2008 and 2025.
    Ohio's maintenance plan shows a projected reduction of
NOX emissions by 8,404.59 tpy between 2008 and the
maintenance projection to 2025, direct PM2.5 emissions of
344.19 tpy, and reduced SO2 emissions of 111.49 tpy between
2008 and 2025. See Table 4 above. In addition, emissions inventories
used in EPA's regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS show that VOC emissions are projected to
decrease by 720 tpy, respectively between 2007 and 2020. Ammonia
emissions are projected to increase slightly between 2007 and 2020 by 8
tpy, which is expected to have minimal air quality impact, an impact
that will be more than compensated by the significant emissions
reductions projected in direct PM2.5, SO2, and
NOX. See Table 5. Given that all emissions except ammonia
decrease significantly below attainment year levels, providing a large
margin of safety, the minimal increase in ammonia would not be expected
to impact the areas ability to attain either the 1997 or 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.

   Table 5--Comparison of 2007 and 2020 VOC and Ammonia Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Canton-
                                               Massillon Area \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Ammonia                                  VOCs
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Net change                             Net change
                                        2007         2020      2007-2020       2007         2020      2007-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................        21.29        20.40        -0.89       919.30       901.40       -17.90
Area..............................      1491.50      1564.69        73.20      4825.67      4846.99        21.32
Nonroad...........................         2.66         3.04         0.38      2723.36      1612.89     -1110.47
On-road...........................       148.98        84.33       -64.65      5199.46      1847.15     -3352.30
Fires.............................         1.69         1.69         0.00        24.28        24.28         0.00
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................      1666.11      1674.16         8.04     13692.06      9232.71     -4459.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These emissions estimates were taken from the emissions inventories developed for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5
  NAAQS which can be found in the docket.

    The current air quality design values for the area are 13.0 and 29
[mu]g/m\3\ (based on 2010-2012 air quality data), which are well below
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 and 35
[mu]g/m\3\. In addition, available air quality modeling analyses show
continued maintenance of the standard during the maintenance period.
The modeling analysis conducted for the RIA for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS indicates that the design value for this area is
expected to continue to decline through 2020. In the RIA analysis, the
highest 2020 modeled design value for the Canton-Massillon area is 10.8
[mu]g/m\3\. Given that NOX, SO2,
PM2.5, and VOC emissions are projected to decrease through
2025, and given that ammonia emissions are expected to remain
relatively constant, it is reasonable to conclude that monitored
PM2.5 levels in this area will continue to decrease through
2025.
    Thus, EPA believes that there is ample justification to conclude
that the Canton-Massillon area will continue to maintain the standard,
even taking into consideration the emissions of other precursors
potentially relevant to PM2.5. After consideration of the DC
Circuit's January 4, 2013, decision, and for the reasons set forth in
this notice, EPA proposes to approve the state's maintenance plan and
its request to redesignate the Canton-Massillon area to attainment for
the PM2.5 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour NAAQS.
    As described in section V.3.b of this action, the result of Federal
rules and consent decree actions, demonstrate that the reductions in
emissions from point, area, and mobile sources in the Canton-Massillon
area have occurred and are mandated to continue to occur through

2025 and beyond. Thus the emissions inventories set forth in Table 4
show that the area will continue to maintain the annual
PM2.5 standard during the maintenance period at least
through 2025.
    Based on the information summarized above, Ohio has adequately
demonstrated maintenance of the PM2.5 standard in this area
for a period extending in excess of ten years from expected final
action on Ohio's redesignation request.
d. Monitoring Network
    Ohio's plan includes a commitment to continue working with West
Virginia to operate its EPA-approved monitoring network, as necessary
to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. Ohio currently
operates three PM2.5 monitors in the Canton-Massillon area.
West Virginia currently operates three monitors in their portion of the
Canton-Massillon area.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
    Ohio remains obligated to continue to quality-assure monitoring
data and enter all data into AQS in accordance with Federal guidelines.
Ohio will use these data, supplemented with additional information as
necessary, to assure that the area continues to attain the standard.
Ohio will also continue to develop and submit periodic emission
inventories as required by the Federal Consolidated Emissions Reporting
Rule (67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002) to track future levels of emissions.
Both of these actions will help to verify continued attainment in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
f. Contingency Plan
    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or
prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation
of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should
identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures,
and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also
identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The
maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will
implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant(s) that
were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to
attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
    Ohio's contingency measures include a Warning Level Response and an
Action Level Response. An initial Warning Level Response is triggered
when the average weighted annual mean for one year exceeds 15.5 [mu]g/
m\3\. A warning level response for the 2006 24-hour standard shall be
prompted whenever the 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5
concentration of 35.5 [mu]g/m\3\ occurs in a single calendar year
within the maintenance area. In that case, a study will be conducted to
determine if the emissions trends show increases; if action is
necessary to reverse emissions increases, Ohio will follow the same
procedures for control selection and implementation as for an Action
Level Response.
    The Action Level Response will be prompted by any one of the
following: a Warning Level Response study that shows emissions
increases, a weighted annual mean for the 1997 annual standard, or a
98th percentile for the 24-hour standard, over a two-year period that
exceeds the standard or a violation of the standard. If an Action Level
Response is triggered, Ohio will adopt and implement appropriate
control measures within 12 months from the end of the year in which
monitored air quality triggering a response occurs.
    Ohio's candidate contingency measures include the following:
    i. Diesel emission reduction strategies;
    ii. Alternative fuels;
    iii. Statewide NOX RACT rules;
    iv. Impact crushers at recycle scrap yards using wet suppression;
    v. Tighter emission offsets for new and modified major sources;
    vi. ICI Boilers--SO2 and NOX controls;
    vii. Emission controls for:
    a. Process heaters;
    b. EGUS;
    c. Internal combustion engines;
    d. Combustion turbines;
    e. Other sources > 100 TPY;
    f. Fleet vehicles;
    g. Concrete manufacturers and;
    h. Aggregate processing plants.
    Ohio further commits to conduct ongoing review of its data, and if
monitored concentrations or emissions are trending upward, Ohio commits
to take appropriate steps to avoid a violation if possible. Ohio
commits to continue implementing SIP requirements upon and after
redesignation.
    EPA believes that Ohio's contingency measures, as well as the
commitment to continue implementing any SIP requirements, satisfy the
pertinent requirements of section 175A(d).
    As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Ohio commits to submit
to the EPA an updated PM2.5 maintenance plan eight years
after redesignation of the Canton-Massillon area to cover an additional
ten year period beyond the initial ten year maintenance period. As
required by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio has also committed to retain
the PM2.5 control measures contained in the SIP prior to
redesignation.
    For all of the reasons set forth above, EPA is proposing to approve
Ohio's 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance plan
for the Canton-Massillon area as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 175A.

5. Adequacy of Ohio's MVEB

a. How are MVEBs developed and what are the MVEBs for the Canton-
Massillon area?
    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for
PM2.5 nonattainment areas and for areas seeking
redesignations to attainment of the PM2.5 standard. These
emission control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP and attainment
demonstration SIP revisions) and maintenance plans create MVEBs based
on on-road mobile source emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their
precursors to address pollution from on-road transportation sources.
The MVEBs are the portions of the total allowable emissions that are
allocated to highway and transit vehicle use that, together with
emissions from other sources in the area, will provide for attainment,
RFP or maintenance, as applicable.

    Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an area seeking a redesignation to
attainment is established for the last year of the maintenance plan and
could also be established for an interim year or years. The MVEB serves
as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system.
The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November
24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188).
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans and
transportation improvement programs (TIPs) must be evaluated to
determine if they conform to the purpose of the area's SIP. Conformity
to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air
quality violations, worsen existing air quality violations, or delay
timely attainment of the NAAQS or any required interim milestone. If a
transportation plan or TIP does not conform, most new transportation
projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward.
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and
procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such
transportation activities to a SIP.
    When reviewing SIP revisions containing MVEBs, including attainment
strategies, rate-of-progress plans, and maintenance plans, EPA must
affirmatively find adequate and/or approve the MVEBs for use in
determining transportation conformity before the MVEBs can be used.
Once EPA affirmatively approves and/or finds the submitted MVEBs to be
adequate for transportation conformity purposes, the MVEBs must be used
by state and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed
transportation plans and TIPs conform to the SIP as required by section
176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining the
adequacy of MVEBs are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Additionally, to
approve a motor vehicle emissions budget EPA must complete a thorough
review of the SIP, in this case the PM2.5 maintenance plans,
and conclude that the SIP will achieve its overall purpose, in this
case providing for maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard the Canton-Massillon area.
    EPA's process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of three
basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a
public comment period; and, (3) EPA taking action on the MVEB. The
process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs is codified
at 40 CFR 93.118.
    The maintenance plan submitted by Ohio for the Canton-Massillon
area contains new primary PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for
the area for the years 2015 and 2025. The motor vehicle emissions
budgets were calculated using MOVES2010(a). After the adequacy finding
and approval of the budgets become effective, the budgets will have to
be used in future conformity determinations and regional emissions
analyses prepared by the SCATS, will have to be based on the use of
MOVES2010a or the most recent version of MOVES required to be used in
transportation conformity determinations.\12\ The state has determined
the 2015 MVEBs for the Canton-Massillon area to be 204.33 tpy for
primary PM2.5 and 7,782.84 tpy for NOX. Ohio has
determined the 2025 MVEBs for the Canton-Massillon area to be 101.50
tpy for primary PM2.5 and 4,673.83 tpy for NOX.
These MVEBs exceed the on-road mobile source primary PM2.5
and NOX emissions projected by the states for 2015 and 2025.
Ohio has decided to include ``safety margins'' as provided for in 40
CFR 93.124(a) (described below) of 26.65 tpy and 13.24 tpy for primary
PM2.5 and 1,015.15 tpy and 609.63 tpy for NOX in
the 2015 and 2025 MVEBs, respectively, to provide for on-road mobile
source growth. Ohio did not provide emission budgets for
SO2, VOCs, and ammonia because it concluded, that emissions
of these precursors from on-road motor vehicles are not significant
contributors to the area's PM2.5 air quality problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA described the circumstances under which an area would
be required to use MOVES in transportation conformity determinations
in its March 2, 2010, Federal Register notice officially releasing
MOVES2010 for use in SIPs and transportation conformity
determinations. (75 FR 9413)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA issued conformity regulations to implement the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in July 2004 and May 2005 (69 FR 40004, July 1,
2004 and 70 FR 24280, May 6, 2005, respectively). Those actions were
not part of the final rule recently remanded to EPA by the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia in NRDC v. EPA, No. 08-1250 (Jan.
4, 2013), in which the Court remanded to EPA the implementation rule
for the PM2.5 NAAQS because it concluded that EPA must
implement that NAAQS pursuant to the PM-specific implementation
provisions of subpart 4 of part D of title I of the CAA, rather than
solely under the general provisions of subpart 1. That decision does
not affect EPA's proposed approval of the Canton-Massillon area MVEBs.
    In the Canton-Massillon area, the motor vehicle budgets including
the safety margins and motor vehicle emission projections for both
NOX and PM2.5 are lower than the levels in the
attainment year.
    EPA has reviewed the submitted budgets for 2015 and 2025 including
the added safety margins using the conformity rule's adequacy criteria
found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and the conformity rule's requirements for
safety margins found at 40 CFR 93.124(a). EPA has also completed a
thorough review of the maintenance plan for the Canton-Massillon area.
Based on the results of this review of the budgets and the maintenance
plans, EPA is approving the 2015 and 2025 direct PM2.5 and
NOX budgets including the requested safety margins for the
Canton-Massillon area. Additionally, EPA, through this rulemaking, has
found the submitted budgets to be adequate for use to determine
transportation conformity in the Canton-Massillon area, because EPA has
determined that the area can maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS for the relevant maintenance period with on-road mobile source
emissions at the levels of the MVEBs including the requested safety
margins. These budgets must be used in conformity determinations made
on or after the effective date of this direct final rulemaking (40 CFR
93.118(f)(iii)). Additionally, transportation conformity determinations
made after the effective date of this notice must be based on regional
emissions analyses using MOVES2010a or a more recent version of MOVES
that has been approved for use in conformity determinations.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ EPA described the circumstances under which an area would
be required to use MOVES in transportation conformity determinations
in its March 2, 2010 Federal Register notice officially releasing
MOVES2010 for use in SIPs and transportation conformity
determinations. (75 FR 9413)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. What is a safety margin?
    A ``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment level
of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions
(from all sources) in the maintenance plan. As shown in Table 4, the
Canton-Massillon area is projected to have safety margins for
NOX and direct PM2.5 of 8,404.59 tpy and 344.19
tpy in 2025 (the difference between the attainment year, 2008,
emissions and the projected year of 2025 emissions for all sources in
the Canton-Massillon area). The transportation conformity rule allows
areas to allocate all or a portion of a ``safety margin'' to the area's
motor

vehicle emissions budgets (40 CFR 92.124(a)). The MVEBs requested by
Ohio contain NOX safety margins for mobile sources in 2015
and 2025 and PM2.5 safety margins for mobile sources in 2015
and 2025 are much smaller than the allowable safety margins reflected
in the total emissions for the Canton-Massillon area. The state is not
requesting allocation to the MVEBs of the entire available safety
margins reflected in the demonstration of maintenance. Therefore, even
though the state is requesting MVEBs that exceed the projected on-road
mobile source emissions for 2015 and 2025 contained in the
demonstration of maintenance, the increase in on-road mobile source
emissions that can be considered for transportation conformity purposes
is well within the safety margins of the overall PM2.5
maintenance demonstration.
    Therefore, EPA believes that the requested budgets, including the
requested portion of the safety margins, provide for a quantity of
mobile source emissions that would be expected to maintain the
PM2.5 standard. Once allocated to mobile sources, these
portions of the safety margins will not be available for use by other
sources.
c. What action is EPA taking on the submitted motor vehicle emissions
budgets?
    EPA, through this rulemaking, has found adequate and is proposing
to approve the MVEBs for use to determine transportation conformity in
the Canton-Massillon area, because EPA has determined that the area can
maintain attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the
relevant maintenance period with mobile source emissions at the levels
of the MVEBs including the requested safety margins. These budgets must
be used in conformity determinations if this rulemaking goes final. (40
CFR 93.118(f)(iii)) Additionally, the determinations must be based on
regional emissions analyses using MOVES2010b or a more recent version
of MOVES that has been approved for use in conformity
determinations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA described the circumstances under which an area would
be required to use MOVES in transportation conformity determinations
in its March 2, 2010, Federal Register notice officially releasing
MOVES2010 for use in SIPs and transportation conformity
determinations. (75 FR 9413)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. 2005 and 2008 Comprehensive Emissions Inventory

    As discussed above, section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires areas to
submit a comprehensive emissions inventory. Ohio submitted a 2005
inventory and a 2008 base year emissions inventory that meets this
requirement. Emissions contained in the submittals cover the general
source categories of point sources, area sources, on-road mobile
sources, and nonroad mobile sources. Further discussion on the
methodology of compiling the emissions inventories can be found in
section V.3.b above, and in the docket. Ohio's supplemental submittal
of base year emission inventories of VOCs and ammonia are also found in
the docket and summarized in Table 6, below.

Table 6--Summary of 2007 Base Year Emissions of Ammonia and VOCs for the
                  Canton-Massillon Area by Source Type
                                  [tpy]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Ammonia      VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................................      21.29     919.30
Area..............................................    1491.50    4825.67
Nonroad...........................................       2.66    2723.36
On-road...........................................     148.98    5199.46
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................    1666.11   13692.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All emissions discussed in Tables 2, 3, and 6 above were documented
in the docket and the appendices of Ohio's redesignation request and
supplemental submittals. EPA has reviewed Ohio's documentation of the
emissions inventory techniques and data sources used for the derivation
of the 2005, 2007, and 2008 emissions estimates, and has found that
Ohio has thoroughly documented the derivation of these emissions
inventories. The submittal from the state shows that the 2008 emissions
inventory is currently the most complete emissions inventories for
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the Canton-
Massillon area. Based upon EPA's review, we propose to find that the
2005 and 2007/2008 emissions inventories are as complete and accurate
as possible given the input data available to Ohio, and we are
proposing to approve them under CAA section 172(c)(3).

7. Summary of Proposed Actions

    EPA has previously determined that the Canton-Massillon area has
attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA
is proposing to determine that the Canton-Massillon area continues to
attain the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard using
the latest three years of certified, quality-assured data, and that the
area has met the requirements for redesignation under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is proposing to approve the request from
Ohio to change the legal designation of the Canton-Massillon area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's
PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Canton-Massillon area as a
revision to the Ohio SIP because the plan meets the requirements of
section 175A of the CAA. EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 and 2008
emissions inventories for primary PM2.5, NOX, and
SO2, documented in Ohio's April 16, 2012, submittal as
satisfying the requirement in section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for a
comprehensive, current emission inventory. Finally, EPA finds adequate
and is approving 2015 and 2025 primary PM2.5 and
NOX MVEBs for the Canton-Massillon area. These MVEBs will be
used in future transportation conformity analyses for the area.

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

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

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not

impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, these actions:
     Are not a ''significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

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

    Dated: July 24, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-18951 Filed 8-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P