Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52733 

on the employer-calculated composite 

premium for the reference QHP (Plan X) such 

that each employee has to contribute $2,000 

to receive self-only coverage through Plan X. 

Under this arrangement, Employer would 

contribute $1,000 toward self-only coverage 

for L and $3,000 toward self-only coverage 

for M, N, and O. In the event an employee 

elects family coverage through Plan X or 

either self-only or family coverage through 

Plan Y, Employer would make the same 

contributions ($1,000 for L or $3,000 for M, 

N, or O) toward that coverage. 

(ii) Conclusion. Employer satisfies the 

uniform percentage requirement because it 

offers and makes contributions based on the 

employer-calculated composite self-only 

premium for the Plan X reference QHP such 

that, in order to receive self-only coverage, 

each employee must pay a uniform amount 

which is not more than 50% of the self-only 

composite premium of the reference QHP; it 

allows employees to use the same employer 

contributions toward family coverage in the 

reference QHP or coverage through another 

QHPs. 

Example 8. (i) Facts. Employer has five 

employees. Employer is located in a State 

that requires employers to pay 50% of 

employees’ premium costs, but also requires 

that an employee’s contribution not exceed a 

certain percentage of the employee’s monthly 

gross earnings from that employer. Employer 

offers to pay 50% of the premium costs for 

all its employees, and to comply with the 

State law, Employer contributes more than 

50% of the premium costs for two of its 

employees. 

(ii) Conclusion. Employer satisfies the 

uniform percentage requirement because its 

failure to otherwise satisfy the uniform 

percentage requirement is attributable solely 

to compliance with the applicable State or 

local law. 

(f) Effective/applicability date. This 

section is applicable for periods after 

December 31, 2013. 

§ 1.45R–5 Claiming the credit. 

(a) Claiming the credit. The credit is 

a general business credit and is claimed 

on an eligible small employer’s annual 

income tax return and offsets an 

employer’s actual tax liability for the 

year. The credit is claimed by attaching 

Form 8941, ‘‘Credit for Small Employer 

Health Insurance Premiums,’’ to the 

eligible small employer’s income tax 

return or, in the case of a tax-exempt 

eligible small employer, by attaching 

Form 8941 to the employer’s Form 990– 

T, ‘‘Exempt Organization Business 

Income Tax Return.’’ To claim the 

credit, a tax-exempt eligible small 

employer must file a form 990–T with 

an attached Form 8941, even if a Form 

990–T would not otherwise be required 

to be filed. 

(b) Estimated tax payments and 

alternative minimum tax (AMT) 

liability. An eligible small employer 

may reflect the credit in determining 

estimated tax payments for the year in 

which the credit applies in accordance 

with the estimated tax rules as set forth 

in section 6654 and 6655 and the 

applicable regulations. An eligible small 

employer may also use the credit to 

offset the employer’s alternative 

minimum tax (AMT) liability for the 

year, if any, subject to certain 

limitations based on the amount of an 

eligible small employer’s regular tax 

liability, AMT liability and other 

allowable credits. See section 38(c)(1), 

as modified by section 38(c)(4)(B)(vi). 

However, an eligible small employer, 

including a tax-exempt eligible small 

employer, may not reduce its deposits 

and payments of employment tax (that 

is, income tax required to be withheld 

under section 3402, social security and 

Medicare tax under sections 3101 and 

3111, and federal unemployment tax 

under section 3301) during the year in 

anticipation of the credit. 

(c) Reduction of section 162 

deduction. No deduction under section 

162 is allowed for the eligible small 

employer for that portion of the health 

insurance premiums that is equal to the 

amount of the credit under § 1.45R–2. 

(d) Effective/applicability date. This 

section is applicable for periods after 

December 31, 2013. 

Heather C. Maloy, 

Acting Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2013–20769 Filed 8–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0597; FRL–9900–29- 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

Redesignation of the Columbus Area 

to Attainment of the 1997 Annual 

Standard for Fine Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant, 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA), a 

redesignation request and approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision request submitted by the state 

of Ohio on June 3, 2011, and 

supplemented on April 30, 2013. The 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

(OEPA) has requested the redesignation 

of the Columbus, Ohio (OH) area to 

attainment of the 1997 annual fine 

particulate (PM2.5) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or 

standard). The Columbus, Ohio area 

(Columbus area) includes Coshocton, 

Delaware, Licking, Fairfield, and 

Franklin Counties. EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Columbus area has 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

and to approve the state’s redesignation 

request. EPA is proposing to approve 

related Ohio SIP revisions, including 

the state’s plan for maintaining 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS in the Columbus area through 

2023, the state’s 2022 Nitrogen Oxides 

(NOX) and PM2.5 Motor Vehicle 

Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the 

Columbus area (which EPA is also 

proposing to find adequate), and 2005 

NOX, Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and primary 

PM2.5 and 2007 Volatile Organic 

Compound (VOC) and ammonia 

emission inventories for the Columbus 

area. In the context of this proposal to 

redesignate the Columbus area, EPA 

addresses a number of additional issues, 

including the effects of two decisions of 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit or 

Court): The Court’s August 21, 2012, 

decision to vacate and remand to EPA 

the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR); and the Court’s January 4, 

2013, decision to remand to EPA two 

final rules implementing the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 25, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0597, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

• Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

• Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th Floor, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s 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–2011– 

0597. EPA’s policy is that all comments 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
52734 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 

and 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 U.S. 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 Edward Doty at (312) 

886–6057 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6057, 

or Doty.Edward@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What actions is EPA proposing? 

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? 

A. Has the Columbus area attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard? 

B. Has the State of Ohio met all plan 

requirements of the CAA applicable for 

purposes of redesignation of the 

Columbus area to attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard? 

1. Ohio Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements for Purposes of 

Redesignation of the Columbus Area 

Under Section 110 and Part D of the 

CAA 

a. Section 110 General SIP Requirements 

b. Part D Requirements 

2. The Columbus Area Has a Fully 

Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 

110(k) of the CAA 

3. Nonattainment Requirements 

4. Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit 

Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 of the 

CAA 

a. Background 

b. Proposal on This Issue 

i. Applicable Requirements for Purposes of 

Evaluating the Redesignation Request 

ii. Subpart 4 Requirements and Ohio’s 

Redesignation Request 

iii. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

C. Are the PM2.5 air quality improvements 

in the Columbus area due to permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions? 

1. Permanent and Enforceable Emission 

Controls 

a. Federal Emission Control Measures 

i. Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles 

and Gasoline Sulfur Standards 

ii. Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule 

iii. Non-Road Diesel Engine Standards 

iv. Non-Road Spark-Ignition Engines and 

Recreational Engine Standards 

b. Control Measures in Upwind Areas 

i. NOX SIP Call 

ii. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and 

CSAPR 

2. Emission Reductions 

a. Ohio’s Demonstration That Significant 

Emission Reductions Have Occurred in 

the Columbus Area and in Upwind Areas 

b. VOC and Ammonia Emission 

Reductions 

c. Conclusions Regarding Emission 

Reductions Between 2005 and 2008 in 

the Columbus Area 

D. Does Ohio have a fully approvable PM2.5

maintenance plan pursuant to section 

175A of the CAA for the Columbus area? 

1. What is required in a maintenance plan? 

2. Attainment Inventory 

3. Demonstration of Maintenance 

a. State Demonstration of Maintenance 

b. CAIR and CSAPR 

i. Background—Effect of the August 21, 

2012, D.C. Circuit Decision garding 

EPA’s CSAPR 

ii. Maintenance Plan Precursor Evaluation 

Resulting From Court Decisions 

c. EPA’s Conclusion for Ohio’s 

Maintenance Demonstration 

4. Monitoring Network 

5. Verification of Continued Attainment 

6. Contingency Plan 

7. Provision for Future Update of the 

Annual PM2.5 Maintenance Plan 

E. Has Ohio adopted acceptable MVEBs for 

the PM2.5 maintenance period? 

1. How are MVEBs developed and what are 

the MVEBs for the Columbus area? 

2. What are safety margins? 

F. Are the 2005 and 2007 base year PM2.5- 

related emissions inventories for the 

Columbus area approvable under section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA? 

1. EPA’s Base Year Emissions Inventory 

SIP Policy 

2. 2005 and 2007 Base Year PM2.5-Related 

Emission Inventories for the Columbus 

Area 

VI. 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 

to 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 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 in the proposed rule. 

II. What actions is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to take several 

actions related to the redesignation of 

the Columbus area to attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

Columbus area has attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on quality 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52735 

1On March 29, 2013, EPA and other parties filed 

petitions in the Supreme Court seeking certiorari of 

the D.C. Circuit’s decision in EME Homer City. On 

June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court consolidated the 

petitions and granted certiorari. The Supreme 

Court’s decision to grant the petitions is not a 

decision on the merits but instead a decision to 

review the case on the merits. As such, it does not 

alter the current status of CAIR or CSAPR. At this 

time, CAIR remains in place. 

assured, certified 2008–2012 air quality 

data. 

EPA is proposing to find that the state 

of Ohio and the Columbus area meet 

requirements for redesignation of the 

Columbus area to attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS under section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is, thus, 

proposing to grant Ohio’s request for a 

redesignation of the Columbus area to 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s 

PM2.5 maintenance plan for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the Columbus 

area as a revision to the Ohio SIP, 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA. The PM2.5

maintenance plan uses projected 

emissions data for 2022, but EPA 

believes that the plan suffices to 

demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Columbus 

area through 2023. The state of Ohio 

commits to revise this maintenance plan 

to cover an additional 10 years within 

8 years after EPA approves the 

redesignation of the Columbus area to 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s 

2022 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the 

Columbus area. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to find these MVEBs as 

adequate for purposes of transportation 

and general conformity demonstrations 

and determinations. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to approve 

2005 primary PM2.5, NOX, and SO2

emission inventories and 2007 VOC and 

ammonia emission inventories for the 

Columbus area as satisfying the 

requirement of section 172(2)(3) of the 

CAA for a current, accurate, and 

comprehensive emission inventory. 

III. What is the background for these 

actions? 

Fine particulate pollution can be 

emitted directly from a source (e.g., 

primary PM2.5, organic particles, crustal 

matter, and elemental carbon) or formed 

secondarily through chemical reactions 

in the atmosphere involving precursor 

pollutants emitted from a variety of 

sources. Sulfates are a type of secondary 

fine particulates formed from reactions 

involving SO2 emissions from power 

plants and industrial facilities. Nitrates, 

another common type of secondary 

particulate, are formed from combustion 

emissions of NOX (primarily NO and 

NO2) from power plants, mobile 

sources, and other combustion sources. 

Emitted precursors of general concern in 

the secondary formation of PM2.5 are 

SO2, NOX, VOC, ammonia, and primary 

PM2.5, all of which can react in the 

atmosphere with other compounds to 

form fine particulates locally (within or 

immediately downwind of significant 

source areas) and adding to PM2.5 levels 

produced through local primary PM2.5

emissions and transported PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursors. 

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 (mg/m3) of 

ambient air, based on a three-year 

average of the annual mean PM2.5

concentrations at each monitoring site 

(the site’s PM2.5 design value for the 

annual standard). In the same 

rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard at a level of 65 mg/m3, 

based on a three-year average of the 

annual 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 Columbus area as 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard. 

On October 17, 2006, at 71 FR 61144, 

the EPA retained the annual PM2.5

standard at 15 mg/m3 (2006 annual PM2.5

standard), but revised the 24-hour PM2.5

standard to 35 mg/m3, 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) 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 January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), 

EPA finalized a rule revising the annual 

PM2.5 standard to 12 mg/m3 based on 

current scientific evidence regarding the 

protection of public health. EPA has not 

established attainment and 

nonattainment areas for this revised 

annual standard and is not addressing 

this standard in this proposal. 

Since the Columbus area is designated 

as nonattainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard and not for other PM2.5

standards, today’s proposed action 

addresses redesignation of this area for 

only this standard. 

On September 14, 2011, EPA issued a 

final determination that the Columbus 

area had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard by the applicable attainment 

date (76 FR 56641). This determination 

of attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard was based on quality-assured 

annual-averaged PM2.5 concentrations 

for PM2.5 monitoring sites in Franklin 

County for the periods of 2007–2009 

and 2008–2010. Based on our review of 

complete, quality-assured, and statecertified ambient PM2.5 monitoring data 

from 2010–2012, we are proposing to 

determine that the Columbus, Ohio area 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On June 3, 2011, OEPA submitted a 

request for EPA to redesignate the 

Columbus area to attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS and to approve a 

SIP revision containing emission 

inventories and PM2.5 maintenance plan 

for the area. The maintenance plan also 

includes 2022 MVEBs for the Columbus 

area. In a supplemental submission to 

EPA on April 30, 2013, the OEPA 

submitted 2007 VOC and ammonia 

emission inventories to supplement the 

2005 primary PM2.5, SO2, and NOX

emission inventories, included in the 

June 3, 2011, redesignation request, to 

meet the emission inventory 

requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA. 

In this proposed rule, EPA takes into 

account two recent decisions of the D.C. 

Circuit. In the first of the two Court 

decisions, the D.C. Circuit, on August 

21, 2012, issued its decision in EME 

Homer City Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 

7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), which vacated and 

remanded CSAPR and ordered EPA to 

continue administering CAIR ‘‘pending 

. . . development of a valid 

replacement.’’ EME Homer City 

Generation, 696 F.3d at 38. The D.C. 

Circuit denied all petitions for rehearing 

on January 24, 2013.1 In the second 

decision, on January 4, 2013, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the 

D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final 

Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

Rule’’ (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and 

the ‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Rule (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

IV. What are the criteria for 

redesignation to attainment? 

The CAA sets forth the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment of a NAAQS. 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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
52736 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 the 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? 

A. Has the Columbus area attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard? 

In a rulemaking published on 

September 14, 2011, EPA determined 

that the Columbus area had attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment deadline for this 

area. The basis and effect of this 

determination were discussed in the 

notices of proposed (76 FR 28393, May 

17, 2011) and final (76 FR 56641, 

September 14, 2011) rulemaking. The 

determination was based on qualityassured air quality monitoring data for 

2007–2009 showing that the area has 

met the standard. The data have been 

certified by Ohio. 

In this action, we are proposing to 

determine that the Columbus area 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS based on the most recent 

three years of complete, certified and 

quality-assured data, and, therefore, we 

are proposing to update our 

determination of attainment for the 

Columbus area. Under EPA’s regulations 

at 40 CFR 50.7, the annual primary 

(human health-based) and secondary 

(environment-based) 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 

mg/m3 at all relevant monitoring sites in 

the area. Under 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N 4.1, a year of PM2.5 data 

meets completeness requirements when 

at least 75 percent of the scheduled 

sampling days for each quarter have 

valid data. 

EPA has reviewed the ambient air 

quality monitoring data for the 

Columbus area consistent with the 

requirements contained at 40 CFR part 

50. EPA’s review focused on Columbus 

area PM2.5 data quality assured and 

certified by the state of Ohio for the 

period of 2007–2012 and recorded in 

the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). 

The Columbus area had three PM2.5

monitoring sites with valid, complete 

annual PM2.5 data for all three-year 

periods considered here. All of these 

monitoring sites were located in 

Franklin County. A fourth PM2.5

monitoring site was located in Franklin 

County beginning in 2010, but has yet 

to monitor complete, certified annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations for a threeyear period. Nevertheless, data 

measured at this site to date support a 

finding of attainment. 

Table 1 summarizes the three-year 

average annual mean PM2.5

concentrations (design values) for the 

three PM2.5 monitoring sites located in 

Franklin County for the three-year 

periods of 2007–2009, 2008–2010, 

2009–2011, and 2010–2012. These 

monitors recorded complete PM2.5 data 

in accordance with criteria set forth by 

EPA in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N. 

Available data are considered to be 

sufficient for comparison to the NAAQS 

if three consecutive years of data exist. 

TABLE 1—THE THREE-YEAR PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES FOR THE COLUMBUS, OHIO AREA MONITORS WITH COMPLETE, 

CERTIFIED PM2.5 MONITORING DATA FOR 2007–2012 

County Monitor 

PM2.5 Threeyear design 

value 

2007–2009 

(μg/m3) 

PM2.5 Threeyear design 

value 

2008–2010 

(μg/m3) 

PM2.5 Threeyear design 

value 

2009–2011 

(μg/m3) 

PM2.5 Threeyear design 

value 

2010–2012 

(μg/m3) 

Franklin ................................................................................ 39–049–0024 13.0 12.5 12.2 11.9 

Franklin ................................................................................ 39–049–0025 12.9 12.2 11.9 11.6 

Franklin ................................................................................ 39–049–0081 11.7 11.3 11.2 11.0 

EPA’s review of monitoring data from 

the 2007–2009, 2008–2010, 2009–2011, 

and 2010–2012 monitoring periods 

supports EPA’s determination that the 

Columbus area has monitored 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS for each three-year period 

considered (the most recent periods 

with complete, quality-assured, and 

state-certified annual PM2.5

concentrations for this area). Therefore, 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

Columbus area continues to attain the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and EPA 

proposes to renew its determination of 

attainment for the Columbus area. 

B. Has the State of Ohio met all 

requirements of the CAA applicable for 

purposes of redesignation of the 

Columbus area to attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard? 

We are proposing to find that Ohio 

has met all currently applicable SIP 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation for the Columbus 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 

approved, in accordance with section 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. As 

discussed below, in this proposed rule, 

EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s 

2005 (primary PM2.5, SO2, and NOX) and 

2007 (VOC and ammonia) emissions 

inventories as meeting the requirements 

of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for a 

comprehensive emissions inventory. 

In making these proposed findings, 

we have ascertained which SIP 

requirements are applicable for 

purposes of redesignation, and have 

concluded that there are measures in the 

Ohio SIP meeting these requirements. 

These measures are approved or will be 

approved by the time of final 

rulemaking. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52737 

1. Ohio Has Met All Applicable Plan 

Requirements for Purposes of 

Redesignation of the Columbus Area 

Under Section 110 and Part D of the 

CAA 

a. 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: 

(1) Include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CAA; (2) 

provide for establishment and operation 

of appropriate devices, methods, 

systems and procedures necessary to 

monitor ambient air quality; (3) provide 

for implementation of a source permit 

program to regulate the modification 

and construction of a stationary source 

within areas covered by the plan; (4) 

include provisions for the 

implementation of part C, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD), and part 

D, New Source Review (NSR), permit 

programs; (5) include criteria for 

stationary source emission control 

measures, monitoring and reporting; (6) 

include provisions for air quality 

modeling; and (7) provide for public 

and local agency participation in 

planning and emission control rule 

development. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA 

requires that a SIP 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 requirements 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 we must 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-Loraine, 

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. 

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 Columbus 

area. Therefore, EPA believes that these 

SIP elements are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of review of 

the state’s PM2.5 redesignation request. 

b. Part D Requirements 

EPA is proposing to determine that, 

upon approval of the base year 

emissions inventories discussed below 

in section V.F of this rulemaking, the 

Ohio SIP will meet the SIP requirements 

for the Columbus 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 pollutant nonattainment areas. 

Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements 

For purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation request, the applicable 

section 172 SIP requirements for the 

Columbus area are contained in sections 

172(c)(1)–(9) of the CAA. A thorough 

discussion of these requirements 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 implementation of all Reasonably 

Available Control Measures (RACM) as 

expeditiously as practicable and to 

provide for attainment of the primary 

(human health-based) 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 achieved in the Columbus area, no 

additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment, and the section 

172(c)(1) requirements are no longer 

considered to be applicable as long as 

the area continues to attain the standard 

(becoming permanently not applicable 

upon final redesignation of the area to 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard, when the area’s maintenance 

plan will dictate the need for additional 

emission control measures) (40 CFR 

51.1004(c)). 

The Reasonable Further Progress 

(RFP) requirement under CAA 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 Columbus 

area has monitored attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Amendments of 

1990,’’ 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, 

(General Preamble) at 57 FR 13564. See 

also 40 CFR 51.918. In addition, because 

the Columbus area has attained the 1997 

annual 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 base 

year emissions inventory for primary 

PM2.5, SO2, and NOX emissions along 

with their redesignation request, and 

supplemented these emissions with a 

2007 base year emissions inventory for 

VOC and ammonia emissions on April 

30, 2013. As discussed below, in section 

V.F of this proposed rule, EPA is 

proposing to approve the 2005 and 2007 

base year emissions inventories as 

meeting the section 172(c)(3) emission 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
52738 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

inventory requirement for the Columbus 

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 in the nonattainment 

area. EPA approved Ohio’s current NSR 

program on January 10, 2003 (68 FR 

1366). Nonetheless, since PSD 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation, the area need not have a 

fully-approved NSR program for 

purposes of redesignation, provided that 

the area demonstrates maintenance of 

the NAAQS without part D NSR. A 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

titled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment’’ (Nichols 

memorandum). Ohio has demonstrated 

that the Columbus area will be able to 

maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard without part D NSR in effect in 

the Columbus area. Therefore, the state 

need not have a fully approved part D 

NSR program as a condition for the 

approval of the state’s redesignation 

request. The state’s PSD program will 

become effective in the Columbus area 

upon redesignation of this area 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 emission 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 that Ohio’s SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Subpart 1 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 a 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 section 

175A maintenance plans. 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 (December 7, 1995) 

(Tampa, Florida). 

Ohio has an approved transportation 

conformity SIP (72 FR 20945). 

2. The Columbus Area Has a Fully 

Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 

110(k) of the CAA 

Upon final approval of Ohio’s 

comprehensive 2005 and 2007 

emissions inventories, EPA will have 

fully approved the Ohio SIP for the 

Columbus area under section 110(k) of 

the CAA for all requirements applicable 

for purposes of redesignation to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA may rely on prior SIP 

approvals in approving a redesignation 

request (See page 3 of the September 4, 

1992, John Calcagni memorandum, 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment’’ 

(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 in 1970, Ohio has 

adopted and submitted, and EPA has 

fully approved, provisions addressing 

various required SIP elements under the 

particulate matter standards. In this 

action, EPA is proposing to approve 

Ohio’s 2005 and 2007 base year 

emissions inventories for the Columbus 

area as meeting the requirement of 

section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard. 

3. Nonattainment Requirements 

Under section 172, states with 

nonattainment areas must submit plans 

providing for timely attainment and 

meeting a variety of other requirements. 

In 2008, Ohio submitted an attainment 

demonstration for PM2.5 for the 

Columbus area. However, pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.1004(c), EPA’s determination 

that the Columbus area has attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard suspends 

the requirement for the state to submit, 

and for the EPA to rule on, certain SIP 

planning elements related to attainment 

planning requirements of the CAA, 

including attainment demonstration 

requirements, the Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT)–RACM 

requirements of section 172(c)(1) of the 

CAA, the RFP and attainment 

requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and 

(6) and 182(b)(1) of the CAA, and the 

contingency measure requirements 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 

requirement under section 172(c)(3) of 

the CAA. As discussed in section V.F of 

this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2005 and 2007 emissions 

inventories that Ohio submitted along 

with its redesignation request and 

maintenance plan for the Columbus area 

and in its April 30, 2013, supplement as 

satisfying this emissions inventory 

requirement. 

No Ohio SIP provision applicable for 

redesignation of the Columbus area for 

the 1997 PM2.5 standard is currently 

disapproved, conditionally approved or 

partially approved. If EPA approves 

Ohio’s Columbus area 2005 and 2007 

PM2.5-based emissions inventories as 

proposed, Ohio will have a fully 

approved SIP for all requirements 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52739 

2Applicable 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. 

4. Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. 

Circuit Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 of the 

CAA 

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 to the particulate matter-specific 

provisions of subpart 4 of part D of title 

I. 

b. Proposal on This Issue 

In this portion of the proposed 

redesignation, EPA addresses the effect 

of the Court’s January 4, 2013, ruling on 

the proposed redesignation. As 

explained below, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Court’s January 4, 

2013, decision does not prevent EPA 

from redesignating the Columbus 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 Ohio’s 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 Columbus 

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 Columbus 

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 

Columbus area redesignation. Under its 

longstanding interpretation of the CAA, 

EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) 

to mean, as a threshold matter, that the 

part D provisions which are 

‘‘applicable’’ and which must be 

approved in order for EPA to 

redesignate an area include only those 

which came due prior to a state’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See the Calcagni memorandum. 

See also ‘‘State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993 (Shapiro 

memorandum); Final Redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 

12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final 

Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 

FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003); 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 

(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation and expressly rejecting 

Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of 

‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is 

‘‘whatever should have been in the plan 

at the time of attainment rather than 

whatever actually was in the plan and 

already implemented or due at the time 

of attainment’’).2 In this case, at the time 

that Ohio submitted its redesignation 

request, requirements under subpart 4 

were not due, and indeed, were not yet 

known to apply. 

EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the Columbus area 

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 nonattainment 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 

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 

arise after the states submit their 

redesignation requests, 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 redesignation requests, 

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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
52740 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3Sierra 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). 

4PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 

micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

5The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 

189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation request is discussed below. 

redesignation requests 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 of Ohio submitted 

its redesignation request on June 3, 

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),3

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 redesignation 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. 

ii. Subpart 4 Requirements and Ohio’s 

Redesignation Request 

Even if EPA were to take the view that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision 

requires that, in the context of pending 

redesignations, subpart 4 requirements 

were due and in effect at the time the 

state submitted its redesignation 

request, EPA proposes to determine that 

the Columbus area still qualifies for 

redesignation to attainment. As 

explained below, EPA believes that the 

redesignation request for the Columbus 

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 Columbus area, EPA notes that 

subpart 4 incorporates components of 

subpart 1 of part D, which contains 

general air quality planning 

requirements for areas designated as 

nonattainment. See Section 172(c). 

Subpart 4 itself contains specific 

planning and scheduling requirements 

for PM10 4 nonattainment areas, and, 

under the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same 

statutory requirements also apply to 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has 

longstanding general guidance that 

interprets the 1990 amendments to the 

CAA, and which makes 

recommendations to states for meeting 

the statutory requirements for SIPs 

addressing nonattainment areas. See 

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. 

For the purposes of this redesignation, 

in order to identify additional 

requirements which would apply under 

subpart 4, we are considering the 

Columbus 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 areas as 

‘‘serious’’ nonattainment areas. 

Accordingly, EPA believes that it is 

appropriate to limit the evaluation of 

the potential impacts of subpart 4 

requirements to those that would be 

applicable to moderate nonattainment 

areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 

4 apply to moderate nonattainment 

areas and include the following: (1) An 

approved permit program for 

construction of new and modified major 

stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); 

(2) an attainment demonstration (section 

189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM 

(section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) 

quantitative milestones demonstrating 

RFP toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date (section 

189(c)). 

The permit requirements of subpart 4, 

as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A), 

refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit 

provisions requirements of sections 172 

and 173 to PM10, without adding to 

them. Consequently, EPA believes that 

section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself 

impose for redesignation purposes any 

additional requirements for moderate 

areas beyond those contained in subpart 

1.5 In any event, in the context of 

redesignation, EPA has long relied on 

the interpretation that a fully approved 

nonattainment NSR program is not 

considered an applicable requirement 

for redesignation, provided that the area 

can maintain the standard with a PSD 

program after redesignation. A detailed 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52741 

6 i.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, 

milestone requirements, and contingency measures. 

7As 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. 

rationale for this view is described in 

the Nichols memorandum. 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). 

With respect to the specific 

attainment planning requirements under 

subpart 4,6 when EPA evaluates a 

redesignation request under either 

subpart 1 and/or 4, any area that is 

attaining the PM2.5 standard is viewed 

as having satisfied the attainment 

planning requirements for these 

subparts. For redesignations, EPA has, 

for many years, interpreted attainmentlinked requirements as not applicable 

for areas attaining the standard. In the 

General Preamble, EPA stated that: 

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, 57 FR 13498, 13564. 

The General Preamble also explained 

that: 

[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are 

directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by 

the applicable date. These requirements no 

longer apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for redesignation. 

Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance 

plans . . . provides specific requirements for 

contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas. 

Id. 

EPA similarly stated in its 1992 

Calcagni memorandum that, ‘‘The 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress and other measures needed for 

attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning for areas not attaining the 

standard.’’ 

It is evident that, even if we were to 

consider the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that 

attainment-related requirements specific 

to subpart 4 should be imposed 

retroactively 7 and, thus, are now past 

due, those requirements do not apply to 

an area that is attaining the 1997 PM2.5

standard, for the purpose of evaluating 

a pending request to redesignate the 

area to attainment. EPA has consistently 

enunciated this interpretation of 

applicable requirements under section 

107(d)(3)(E) since the General Preamble 

was published more than twenty years 

ago. Courts have recognized the scope of 

EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ in the redesignation 

context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). 

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 PM2.5 standard. 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. 

§ 7513a(e) [section 189(e)]. 

Id. at 21, n.7. For a number of reasons, 

EPA believes that its proposed 

redesignation of the Columbus area is 

consistent with the Court’s decision 

with respect to 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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
52742 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

8Under 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 to adopt those 

measures that are deemed reasonably available. 

9The Columbus area has reduced VOC emissions 

through the implementation of various control 

programs including VOC RACT regulations and 

various on-road and non-road motor vehicle control 

programs. 

10See, 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 imposed 

controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and that 

did not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or ammonia 

emissions). 

11See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 

423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005). 

regarding ammonia and VOC as 

precursors. The Court had no occasion 

to reach whether and how it was 

substantively necessary to regulate any 

specific precursor in a particular PM2.5

nonattainment area, and did not address 

what might be necessary for purposes of 

acting upon a redesignation request. 

However, even if EPA takes the view 

that the requirements of subpart 4 were 

deemed applicable at the time the state 

submitted the redesignation request, 

and disregards the implementation 

rule’s rebuttable presumptions regarding 

ammonia and VOC as PM2.5 precursors, 

the regulatory consequence would be to 

consider the need for regulation of all 

precursors from any sources in the area 

to demonstrate attainment and to apply 

the section 189(e) provisions to major 

stationary sources of precursors. In the 

case of the Columbus area, EPA believes 

that doing so is consistent with 

proposing redesignation of the area for 

the 1997 PM2.5 standard. The Columbus 

area has attained the 1997 PM2.5

standard without any specific additional 

controls of VOC and ammonia 

emissions from any sources in the area. 

Precursors in subpart 4 are 

specifically regulated under the 

provisions of section 189(e), which 

requires, with important exceptions, 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of PM10 precursors.8

Under subpart 1 and EPA’s prior 

implementation rule, all major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors 

were subject to regulation, with the 

exception of ammonia and VOC. Thus, 

we must address here whether 

additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC from major stationary sources are 

required under section 189(e) of subpart 

4 in order to redesignate the 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. 

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 VOC under other CAA requirements 

may suffice to relieve a state from the 

need to adopt precursor controls under 

section 189(e). See 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 VOC as precursors. This proposed 

determination is based on our findings 

that: (1) The Columbus area contains no 

major stationary sources of ammonia, 

and (2) existing major stationary sources 

of VOC are adequately controlled under 

other provisions of the CAA regulating 

the ozone NAAQS.9 In the alternative, 

EPA proposes to determine that, under 

the express exception provisions of 

section 189(e), and in the context of the 

redesignation of the area, which is 

attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard, at present ammonia and VOC 

precursors from major stationary 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to levels exceeding the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard in this area. See 57 FR 

13539–13542. 

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 the control of PM2.5 under 

the attainment planning provisions of 

subpart 4, those provisions do not 

require additional control 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 done 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 to be 

regulated for attainment and control 

purposes.10 Courts have upheld this 

approach to the requirements of subpart 

4 for PM10.11 EPA believes that 

application of this approach to PM2.5

precursors under subpart 4 is 

reasonable. Because the Columbus area 

has already attained the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS with its current approach to 

regulation of PM2.5 precursors, EPA 

believes that it is reasonable to conclude 

in the context of this redesignation that 

there is no need to revisit the attainment 

control strategy with respect to the 

treatment of precursors. Even if the 

Court’s decision is construed to impose 

an obligation, in evaluating this 

redesignation request, to consider 

additional precursors under subpart 4, it 

would not affect EPA’s approval here of 

Ohio’s request for redesignation of the 

Columbus area. In the context of a 

redesignation, the state has shown that 

the Columbus area has attained the 

standard. Moreover, the state has shown 

and EPA has proposed to determine that 

attainment in this area is due to 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions on all precursors necessary 

to provide for continued attainment. 

Therefore, 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 

Columbus area to attainment for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. 

In sum, even if Ohio were required to 

address precursors for the Columbus 

area under subpart 4 rather than under 

subpart 1, as interpreted in EPA’s 

remanded 1997 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). 

C. Are the PM2.5 air quality 

improvements in the Columbus area due 

to permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions? 

For purposes of redesignation, section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA requires the 

state to demonstrate that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions resulting from the 

implementation of the SIP, applicable 

Federal air pollution control 

regulations, and other permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions. EPA 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52743 

finds that Ohio has demonstrated that 

the observed PM2.5 air quality 

improvement in the Columbus area is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions. In making this 

demonstration, Ohio has determined the 

change in primary PM2.5, NOX, and SO2

emissions between 2005, one of the 

years in which the Columbus area 

violated the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard, and 2008, one of the years in 

which the Columbus area attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard. 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 have been 

implemented in the Columbus area and 

in surrounding contributing areas. 

1. Permanent and Enforceable Emission 

Controls 

The following is a discussion of 

permanent and enforceable emission 

control measures that have been 

implemented in the Columbus area and 

in upwind areas (resulting in lower 

pollutant transport into the Columbus 

area). 

a. Federal Emission Control Measures 

Reductions in PM2.5 precursor 

emissions have occurred statewide and 

in upwind areas as a result of the 

following Federal emission control 

measures. Most of these emission 

control measures will result in 

additional emission reductions in the 

future. 

i. Tier 2 Emission Standards for 

Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards 

These emission control requirements 

result in lower VOC, 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 time post-2009 

vehicles have entirely replaced pre-2009 

vehicles, the following vehicle NOX

emission reductions will occur 

nationwide: Passenger cars (light-duty 

vehicles, 77 percent; light-duty trucks, 

minivans, and sport utility vehicles, 86 

percent; and, larger sport utility 

vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks, 65 to 

95 percent. VOC emission reductions 

will be approximately 12 percent for 

passenger cars, 18 percent for smaller 

sports utility vehicles, light trucks, and 

minivans, and 15 percent for larger 

sports utility vans, and heavier trucks. 

Some of the emission reductions 

resulting from new vehicle standards 

occurred during the 2005–2008 period. 

Additional emission reductions 

occurred subsequent to 2008, and will 

continue to occur as the result of this 

emission control throughout the 

maintenance period 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. The sulfur content of gasoline is 

estimated to be reduced by up to 90 

percent by the end of the 

implementation of this emission control 

program. 

ii. Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule 

This rule, which EPA issued in July 

2000, limits the sulfur content of diesel 

fuel and went into effect in 2004. A 

second phase of implementation took 

effect in 2007 and resulted in reduced 

PM2.5 emissions from heavy-duty 

highway diesel engines and further 

reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur 

content to 15 ppm. The full 

implementation of this rule is estimated 

to achieve a 90 percent reduction in 

direct PM2.5 emissions (including direct 

emissions of sulfates) and a 95 percent 

reduction of NOX emissions for new 

engines using low sulfur diesel fuel. The 

reductions in fuel sulfur content 

occurred by during the 2007–2009 

attainment period; however, additional 

emission reductions will continue to 

occur throughout the maintenance 

period as vehicles with older heavyduty diesel engines are replaced by 

vehicles with newer diesel engines. This 

rule will also lower SO2 emissions from 

engines using the low sulfur diesel fuel, 

resulting in lower PM2.5 sulfate 

concentrations; however, EPA has not 

estimated the level of this emission 

reduction and the level of its impact on 

PM2.5 concentrations. 

iii. Non-Road Diesel Engine Standards 

In May 2004, EPA promulgated a rule 

to establish emission standards for large 

non-road diesel engines, such as those 

used in construction, agriculture, or 

mining operations, and to regulate the 

sulfur content in non-road diesel fuel. 

The engine emission standards in this 

rule were to be phased in between 2008 

and 2014. This rule reduced the 

allowable sulfur content in non-road 

diesel fuel by over 99 percent. Prior to 

2006, non-road diesel fuel averaged 

approximately 3,400 ppm in sulfur 

content. This rule limits non-road diesel 

fuel sulfur content to 500 ppm by 2010. 

The combined engine standards and 

fuel sulfur content limits reduced NOX

and PM2.5 emissions (including direct 

emissions of sulfates) from large nonroad diesel engines by over 90 percent 

compared to pre-control non-road 

engines using the higher sulfur content 

diesel fuel. This rule achieved all of the 

reductions in fuel sulfur content by 

2010. Some emission reductions from 

the new engine emission standards were 

realized over the 2007–2009 attainment 

period, although most of the engine 

emission reductions will occur during 

the maintenance period as the non-road 

diesel engines are replaced with newer 

engines. 

iv. Non-Road Spark-Ignition Engines 

and Recreational Engine Standards 

Although Ohio did not document this 

Federal emission control measure in its 

May 2011 ‘‘Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for the Columbus 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area’’ nor in the 

supplemental emissions submittal, Ohio 

could have also taken credit for this 

permanent and enforceable Federal 

emission control requirement. 

In November 2002, EPA promulgated 

emission standards for groups of 

previously unregulated non-road 

engines. These engines include large 

spark-ignition engines, such as those 

used in forklifts and airport groundservice 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 sparkignition engines were implemented in 

two tiers, with Tier 1 starting in 2004 

and Tier 2 starting in 2007. Recreational 

vehicle emission standards were phased 

in from 2006 through 2012. Marine 

diesel engine standards were phased in 

from 2006 through 2009. 

With full implementation of all of the 

non-road spark-ignition engine and 

recreational engine standards, an overall 

72 percent reduction in VOC, 80 percent 

reduction in NOX and 56 percent 

reduction carbon monoxide (CO) 

emissions are expected by 2020. Some 

of these emission reductions had 

occurred by the 2008–2010 attainment 

period and additional emission 

reductions will occur during the 

maintenance period as the fleets turn 

over. 

b. Control Measures in Upwind Areas 

Given the significance of sulfates and 

nitrates in the Columbus area PM2.5 air 

quality, the area’s PM2.5 air quality is 

strongly affected by regulation of SO2

and NOX emissions from power plants 

in areas upwind of the Columbus area. 

The following discusses the emission 

control regulations impacting upwind 

area. 

i. 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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
52744 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

reduce emissions of NOX. Affected 

states were required to comply with 

Phase I of the NOX SIP call beginning 

in 2004, and with Phase II beginning in 

2007. NOX emission reductions 

resulting from regulations developed in 

response to the NOX SIP call area 

permanent and enforceable. The state of 

Ohio and other nearby, upwind states, 

including Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, 

and Kentucky, were subject to the NOX

SIP call. 

ii. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and 

CSAPR 

EPA proposed CAIR on January 30, 

2004, at 69 FR 4566, and promulgated 

CAIR on May 12, 2005, at 70 FR 25162, 

and promulgated associated Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs) on April 

28, 2006, at 71 FR 25328, in order to 

reduce SO2 and NOX emissions and 

improve air quality in areas across 

Eastern United States. However, on July 

11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit vacated and 

remanded both CAIR and the associated 

CAIR FIPs in their entirety. See North 

Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). EPA petitioned for a rehearing, 

and the D.C. Circuit issued an order 

remanding CAIR and the CAIR FIPs to 

EPA without vacatur. See North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008). The D.C. Circuit, thereby, left 

CAIR in place in order to ‘‘temporarily 

preserve the environmental values 

covered by CAIR’’ until EPA replaced it 

with a rule consistent with the Court’s 

opinion. Id. at 1178. The Court directed 

EPA to ‘‘remedy CAIR’s flaws’’ 

consistent with the July 11, 2008, 

opinion, but declined to impose a 

schedule on EPA for completing this 

action. Id. 

EPA recently promulgated CSAPR (76 

FR 48208, August 8, 2011) to replace 

CAIR, which, as noted above, had been 

in place since 2005. See 76 FR 59517. 

CSAPR required significant reductions 

in emissions of SO2 and NOX from 

electric generating units to limit the 

interstate transport of these pollutants 

and the ozone and fine particulate 

matter they form in the atmosphere. See 

76 FR 70093. 

On December 30, 2011, the D.C. 

Circuit issued an order addressing the 

status of CSAPR and CAIR in response 

to motions filed by numerous parties 

seeking a stay of CSAPR pending 

judicial review. In that order, the Court 

stayed CSAPR pending resolution of the 

petitions for review of that rule in EME 

Homer City Generation v. EPA (No. 11– 

1302 and consolidated cases). The Court 

also indicated that EPA was expected to 

continue to administer CAIR in the 

interim until judicial review of CSAPR 

as completed. 

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. In 

that decision, it also ordered EPA to 

continue administering CAIR ‘‘pending 

the promulgation of a valid 

replacement.’’ EME Homer City 

Generation, 696 F.3d at 38. The D.C. 

Circuit denied all petitions for rehearing 

on January 24, 2013. EPA and other 

parties have filed petitions for certiorari 

to the U.S. Supreme Court. As noted 

above, on June 24, 2013, the Supreme 

Court consolidated the petitions and 

granted certiorari (granted review as 

requested by these petitions). 

Nonetheless, EPA intends to continue to 

act in accordance with the EME Homer 

City Generation opinion. 

In light of these unique circumstances 

and for the reasons explained below, to 

the extent that attainment is due to 

emission reductions associated with 

CAIR, EPA is proposing to determine 

that those emission reductions are 

sufficiently permanent and enforceable 

for purposes of CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) (and for purposes of 

assessing maintenance of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard in the Columbus 

area, as discussed below, for CAA 

section 175A). 

2. Emission Reductions 

a. Ohio’s Demonstration That 

Significant Emission Reductions Have 

Occurred in the Columbus Area and in 

Upwind Areas 

To demonstrate that significant 

emission reductions have resulted in 

attainment, Ohio EPA compared the 

Columbus area NOX, SO2, and primary 

PM2.5 emissions for 2005 with those of 

2008. As noted above, the 2008 

emissions represent those for a year in 

which the Columbus area was attaining 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard (2008 is 

the middle year of the 2007–2009 period 

in which the Columbus area initially 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard), and 2005 represents a year in 

which the Columbus area was violating 

this standard. 

The derivation of the 2005 (base year) 

emissions is discussed in more detail 

below in section V.F of this proposed 

rule. The derivation of the 2008 

(attainment year) emissions is discussed 

in more detail here. 

The 2008 emissions were based on 

actual source activity levels. The point 

source emissions were compiled from 

Ohio’s annual emissions reports, 

submitted to the OEPA by individual 

source facilities for all non-Electric 

Generating Unit (non-EGU) sources, and 

EGU emissions projected from the 2005 

EPA Air Market’s acid rain database. 

Area source emissions were taken from 

the Ohio 2005 periodic inventory and 

were projected to 2008 using 

Department of Commerce Bureau of 

Economic Analysis (BEA) growth factors 

and some updated local information. 

Area source emissions were calculated 

using the most recently available 

emission calculation methodologies, 

and source activity data (population, 

employment by source sector, fuel use, 

etc.) specific to 2008. On-road mobile 

source emissions were calculated using 

EPA’s MOVES2010 emissions model 

with 2008 Vehicle Miles Traveled 

(VMT) and other vehicle data (roadway 

speeds, vehicle type and age 

distribution, etc.) provided by the MidOhio Regional Planning Commission 

(MORPC) and Ohio Department of 

Transportation (ODOT). Non-road 

mobile source emissions were generated 

using EPA’s National Mobile Inventory 

Model (NMIM) 2002 application and 

source activity data projected to 2008. 

Emissions for aircraft, commercial 

marine vessels, and railroads were 

derived separately by contractors under 

the direction of the Lake Michigan Air 

Directors Consortium (LADCO). Spatial 

surrogates were used to allocate 

emissions to individual counties. 

Biogenic emissions were not calculated 

since these emissions are assumed to 

remain constant over time (biogenic 

emissions are not included in the 2002, 

2008, 2015, and 2022 emissions 

summarized in this proposed rule). 

The 2005 and 2008 emissions for 

NOX, SO2, and primary PM2.5 for the 

Columbus area are summarized in tables 

2 through 4 below. All emissions are in 

units of tons per year (TPY). All 

summarized emissions are documented 

in Ohio’s May 2011 ‘‘Redesignation 

Request and Maintenance Plan For the 

Columbus Annual PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area.’’ 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52745 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF 2005 AND 2008 NOX EMISSION TOTALS FOR THE COLUMBUS AREA BY SOURCE SECTOR

[TPY] 

Source sector 2005 2008 Net change 

2005–2008 

Point Sources .............................................................................................................................. 25,188.87 24,373.96 ¥814.91 

Area Sources ............................................................................................................................... 5,467.2 5,534.32 67.12 

On-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................ 53,390.61 44,825.81 ¥8,564.80 

Off-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................ 14,609.69 12,728.47 ¥1,881.22 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 98,656.37 87,462.56 ¥11,193.81 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF 2005 AND 2008 PRIMARY PM2.5 EMISSION TOTALS FOR THE COLUMBUS AREA BY SOURCE

SECTOR

[TPY] 

Source sector 2005 2008 Net change 

2005–2008 

Point Sources .............................................................................................................................. 1,478.64 1,553.83 75.19 

Area Sources ............................................................................................................................... 1,552.43 1,620.06 67.63 

On-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................ 1,660.33 1,451.09 ¥209.24 

Off-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................ 1,058.53 908.32 ¥150.21 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 5,749.93 5,533.3 ¥216.63 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF 2005 AND 2008 SO2 EMISSION TOTALS FOR THE COLUMBUS AREA BY SOURCE SECTOR

[TPY] 

Source sector 2005 2008 Net change 

2005–2008 

Point Sources .............................................................................................................................. 111,266.53 94,553.48 ¥16,713.05 

Area Sources ............................................................................................................................... 566.95 563.68 ¥3.27 

On-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................ 864.22 283.05 ¥581.17 

Off-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................ 1,603.24 729.80 ¥873.44 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 114,300.88 96,130.01 ¥18,170.87 

Tables 2 through 4 show that NOX, 

SO2, and primary PM2.5 emissions in the 

Columbus area have been reduced 

significantly between the 2005 violation 

year and the 2008 attainment year. 

In addition to the local PM2.5

precursor emission reductions, we 

believe that regional NOX and SO2

emission reductions resulting from the 

implementation of EPA’s Acid Rain 

Program (ARP) (see 40 CFR parts 72 

through 78), NOX SIP call, and CAIR 

have significantly contributed to the 

PM2.5 air quality improvement in the 

Columbus area. To assess the change in 

regional emissions from states believed 

to significantly contribute to annual 

PM2.5 concentrations in the Columbus 

area, OEPA has considered the change 

in EGU NOX and SO2 emissions from 

Ohio and surrounding states between 

2008 and 2009. Table 5 shows the 

reduction in NOX and SO2 emissions for 

EGUs in Ohio, the LADCO states 

(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin), and nationwide (these data 

are taken from table 9, page 23 of 

OEPA’s May 2011 redesignation and 

maintenance plan). 

TABLE 5—STATEWIDE EGU EMISSIONS FOR 2008 AND 2009 

[TPY] 

Area 

NOX SO2

2008 2009 Percent 

reduction 2008 2009 Percent reduction 

Ohio .......................................................... 235,018 96,351 59 709,444 601,101 15 

LADCO States ......................................... 702,384 393,930 44 2,019,036 1,620,071 20 

Nationwide ............................................... 2,996,385 1,990,385 34 7,616,262 5,747,353 25 

As can be seen in table 5, the 

implementation of CAIR (the primary 

additional regional emissions control 

implemented during the 2008–2009 

period) resulted in significant 

reductions in Ohio, regional, and 

nationwide NOX and SO2 emissions 

from EGUs, all of which OEPA believes 

contributed to attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard in the Columbus 

area. Since CAIR remains in place until 

EPA can replace it with an acceptable 

new state region-wide emissions control 

rule, we believe these emission 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
52746 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

12For a thorough discussion of VOC emission 

controls and estimates (2002 and 2004) and 

projected (2009 and 2018) VOC emission levels 

(summertime emissions) in the Columbus area, see 

EPA’s proposed rule for the redesignation of the 

Columbus area to attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard (72 FR 32257, June 12, 2007). We 

observe here that the estimated/projected 

summertime VOC emission reductions in the 

Columbus area also generally reflect reductions in 

annual emissions of VOC in this area. 

reductions to be permanent and 

enforceable. 

The information summarized above 

shows that emissions of PM2.5 and its 

most significant precursors (SO2 and 

NOX) have significantly decreased 

between 2005 and 2009 in the 

Columbus area and in states with EGU 

emissions significantly impacting the 

annual PM2.5 concentrations in the 

Columbus area. 

b. VOC and Ammonia Emission 

Reductions 

For several reasons we believe that 

VOC emission reductions in the 

Columbus area and in upwind states 

have also contributed to the observed 

improvement in annual PM2.5

concentrations in the Columbus area. In 

addition, for several reasons, we also 

believe that changes in ammonia 

emissions have not significantly 

impacted the observed annual PM2.5

concentrations in this area. 

First, as noted elsewhere in this 

proposed rule in EPA’s discussion of 

section 189(e) of the CAA, VOC 

emissions in the Columbus area have 

historically been well-controlled under 

SIP requirements related to ozone and 

other pollutants.12 Second, total 

ammonia emissions throughout the 

Columbus area are very low, estimated 

to be 6,101.37 TPY in 2007. See the 

discussion of 2007 VOC and ammonia 

emissions below. This amount of 

ammonia emissions appears especially 

small in comparison to the total 

amounts of SO2 and NOX emissions 

sources in the area in 2005. Third, as 

described below, available information 

shows that no PM2.5 precursor, 

including VOC and ammonia, is 

expected to increase over the 

maintenance period so as to interfere 

with or undermine the state’s 

maintenance demonstration. 

c. Conclusions Regarding Emission 

Reductions Between 2005 and 2008 in 

the Columbus Area 

From the above, it is concluded that 

SO2, NOX, primary PM2.5, and VOC 

emissions were well controlled between 

2005 and 2008 and that significant 

reductions in the emissions of these 

pollutants occurred in the Columbus 

area during this period. During the same 

period, emissions of ammonia are 

believed to have had minimal impact on 

PM2.5 concentrations in the Columbus 

area. We believe that the emission 

reductions of the significant PM2.5

precursors, including primary PM2.5, in 

the Columbus area and in upwind states 

are responsible for the observed 

improvement in annual PM2.5

concentrations in the Columbus area. 

Based on this observation, we conclude 

that the attainment of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard in the Columbus area 

can be explained on the basis of 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions within the Columbus area 

and in the states regulated by CAIR and 

NOX SIP call regulations. 

D. Does Ohio have a fully approvable 

PM2.5 maintenance plan pursuant to 

Section 175A of the CAA for the 

Columbus area? 

In conjunction with Ohio’s request to 

redesignate the Columbus area to 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard, OEPA submitted a SIP 

revision to provide for maintenance of 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in the 

Columbus area through 2022. This 

maintenance plan demonstrates that 

emissions in the Columbus area are 

projected to remain at or below the 

attainment levels throughout the 

maintenance period and provides for 

corrective action should the 1997 

annual standard be violated or 

threatened in the Columbus area during 

the maintenance period. The following 

summarizes the details of the 

maintenance plan and maintenance 

demonstration. 

1. What is required in a maintenance 

plan? 

Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175A of 

the CAA require that states demonstrate 

that the areas to be redesignated will 

continue to meet the PM2.5 NAAQS for 

at least 10 years after EPA approves the 

redesignation of the areas to attainment 

of the NAAQS. Section 175A of the 

CAA sets forth the required elements of 

a maintenance plan. Under section 

175A, a state must also commit to 

submit a revised maintenance plan 

within eight years after redesignation to 

provide for maintenance of the standard 

for an additional 10 years after the 

initial 10-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 violations of the 

standard. 

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 emission inventories; a 

maintenance demonstration showing 

maintenance of the standard for the 10 

years of the maintenance period; a 

commitment to maintain the existing 

monitoring network; documentation of 

the factors and procedures to be used for 

verification of continued attainment of 

the standard; and, a contingency plan to 

prevent or correct future violations of 

the standard. 

2. Attainment Inventory 

The OEPA developed NOX, SO2, and 

primary PM2.5 emission inventories for 

2008, one of the years used to 

demonstrate monitored attainment of 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. These 

emission levels are defined to be the 

attainment levels of the emissions. The 

2008 attainment levels of the emissions 

are summarized in tables 3 through 5 

above and in tables 6 through 8 below. 

3. Demonstration of Maintenance 

a. State Demonstration of Maintenance 

Along with the redesignation request, 

OEPA submitted a revision of the Ohio 

PM2.5 SIP to include a demonstration of 

maintenance for the Columbus area, as 

required by section 175A of the CAA. 

This demonstration shows maintenance 

of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 

through 2022 by showing that current 

and future emissions of NOX, SO2, and 

primary PM2.5 for the Columbus area 

will remain at or below attainment year 

emission levels. A maintenance 

demonstration may be based on such an 

emissions inventory approach. See Wall 

v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th 

Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099– 

53100 (October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413, 

25430–25432 (May 12, 2003). 

OEPA used emission projections for 

2015 and 2022 to demonstrate 

maintenance. For primary PM2.5, SO2, 

and NOX, OEPA prepared emission 

estimates for the same source sectors 

used for the attainment year emission 

estimates. As for the base year and 

attainment year, biogenic emissions 

were assumed to remain constant, and 

were not considered in the maintenance 

demonstration analysis. 

As done for the 2005 and 2008 mobile 

source emissions, OEPA used EPA’s 

MOVES2010 mobile source model and 

projected traffic levels and other related 

mobile source factors to estimate onroad mobile source emissions for the 

maintenance demonstration years. The 

on-road mobile source emission 

projections were developed assuming 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52747 

the continued phase-in of the Federal 

motor vehicle emission standards. Total 

VMT and other on-road vehicle data for 

2015 and 2022 were derived using the 

same modeling systems (with projected 

input data population, population 

distribution, etc.) used to derive the 

2005 and 2008 on-road mobile source 

emissions. As with the 2005 and 2008 

on-road mobile source emissions, EPA’s 

MOVES2010 model was used to 

calculate mobile source emission 

factors. The 2015 and 2022 on-road 

mobile source emissions were used to 

establish MVEBs for the Columbus area. 

See the additional discussion of the 

MVEBs in section V.E of this proposed 

rule. 

Columbus area point and area source 

emissions for 2015 and 2022 were 

estimated using the 2008 attainment 

year emissions and growth factors for 

each source category within each source 

sector. Emission growth factors were 

provided by LADCO. 

Tables 6 through 8 summarize the 

projected NOX, SO2, and primary PM2.5

emissions for 2008, 2015 and 2022 by 

source sector in the Columbus area. 

TABLE 6—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015, AND 2022 NOX EMISSIONS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE COLUMBUS

AREA

Source sector 2008 2015 2022 Net change 

2008–2022 

Point Sources .................................................................................................. 24,373.96 13,159.20 7,627.51 ¥16,746.45 

Area Sources ................................................................................................... 5,534.32 5,577.77 5,631.84 97.52 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................................................... 44,825.81 21,812.27 10,597.83 ¥34,227.98 

Off-Road Mobile ............................................................................................... 12,728.47 8,113.60 3,519.93 ¥9,208.54 

Totals ........................................................................................................ 87,462.56 48,662.84 27,377.11 ¥60,085.45 

TABLE 7—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015, AND 2022 SO2 EMISSIONS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE COLUMBUS

AREA

Source sector 2008 2015 2022 Net change 

2008–2022 

Point Sources .................................................................................................. 94,553.48 44,636.32 23,258.56 ¥71,294.92 

Area Sources ................................................................................................... 563.68 548.39 533.8 ¥29.88 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................................................... 283.05 128.37 124.45 ¥158.60 

Off-Road Mobile ............................................................................................... 729.80 259.63 149.42 ¥580.38 

Totals ........................................................................................................ 96,130.01 45,572.71 24,066.23 ¥72,063.78 

TABLE 8—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015, AND 2022 PRIMARY PM2.5 EMISSIONS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE

COLUMBUS AREA

Source sector 2008 2015 2022 Net change 

2008–2022 

Point Sources .................................................................................................. 1,553.83 1,647.99 1,745.63 191.80 

Area Sources ................................................................................................... 1,620.06 1,623.79 1,627.88 7.82 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................................................... 1,451.09 759.53 486.2 ¥964.89 

Off-Road Mobile ............................................................................................... 908.32 613.95 314.31 ¥594.01 

Totals ........................................................................................................ 5,533.30 4,645.26 4,174.02 ¥1,359.28 

Comparison of the 2008 and projected 

2015 and 2022 emissions demonstrates 

that future NOX, SO2, and primary PM2.5

emissions through 2022 will remain 

below the 2008 levels in the Columbus 

area. EPA concludes that Ohio had 

demonstrated maintenance of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard in the Columbus 

area. In addition, for the reasons set 

forth below, EPA believes that Ohio’s 

submissions, in conjunction with 

additional supporting information, 

further demonstrate that the Columbus 

area will continue to maintain the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard at least through 

2023. Thus, in anticipation that EPA 

will complete action on Ohio’s 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan in 2013, EPA proposes to conclude 

that the state’s maintenance plan 

provides for maintenance for the 

requisite ten years after redesignation, 

in accordance with section 175A of the 

CAA. 

The rates of decline in emissions of 

primary PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 emissions 

from the attainment year, 2008, through 

2022 documented in Ohio’s 

maintenance demonstration indicate 

that emission levels will not only 

significantly decline between 2008 and 

2022, but that reductions in emissions 

(relative to 2008 levels) will continue 

through 2023 and beyond. The projected 

average annual rates of decline are 4,292 

TPY per year for NOX, 5,147 TPY per 

year for SO2, and 97 TPY per year for 

primary PM2.5. These rates of decline are 

consistent with monitored and projected 

air quality trends and with emission 

reductions achieved through emissions 

controls and regulations that will 

remain in place through 2023. 

Furthermore, fleet turnover in on-road 

and non-road vehicles that will 

continue to occur after 2022 will 

provide additional significant emission 

reductions. 

In addition, as table 1 demonstrates, 

monitored PM2.5 design value 

concentrations in the Columbus area are 

well below the NAAQS in the years 

beyond 2008. These PM2.5 design values 

are trending downward as time 

progresses. Based on the future 

projections of emissions in 2015 and 

2022, which show significant emission 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
52748 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

reductions in primary PM2.5, NOX, and 

SO2, it is very unlikely that monitored 

PM2.5 concentrations in 2023 and 

beyond will show violations of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard. The 2010–2012 

p.m.2.5 design values documented in 

table 1, coupled with the projected 

drops in PM2.5 precursor emissions, 

imply that there will be a PM2.5

attainment margin in the Columbus area 

sufficient to buffer against violations of 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in the 

unlikely event that emissions rise 

slightly in the future between 2022 and 

2023. 

b. CAIR and CSAPR 

i. Background—Effect of the August 21, 

2012, D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding 

EPA’s CSAPR 

EPA recently promulgated CSAPR (76 

FR 48208, August 8, 2011) to replace 

CAIR, which has been in place since 

2005. See 76 FR 59517. CAIR requires 

significant reductions in emissions of 

SO2 and NOX from EGUs to limit the 

interstate transport of these pollutants 

and the ozone and PM2.5 they form in 

the atmosphere. See 76 FR 70093. The 

D.C. Circuit initially vacated CAIR, 

North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately 

remanded that rule to EPA without 

vacatur to preserve the environmental 

benefits provided by CAIR, North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). 

CSAPR included regulatory changes 

to sunset (i.e., discontinue) CAIR and 

CAIR FIPs for control periods in 2012 

and beyond. See 76 FR 48322. Although 

the Columbus area redesignation request 

and Ohio’s PM2.5 maintenance plan do 

not rely on emission reductions 

associated with CAIR, EPA notes that it 

is proposing to approve the 

redesignation request and PM2.5

maintenance plan based, in part, on the 

fact that CAIR is to remain in place until 

it is replaced by an acceptable interstate 

transport control rule. 

On December 30, 2011, the D.C. 

Circuit issued an order addressing the 

status of CSAPR and CAIR in response 

to motions filed by numerous parties 

seeking a stay of CSAPR pending 

judicial review. In that order, the Court 

stayed CSAPR pending resolution of the 

petitions for review of that rule in EME 

Homer City (No. 11–1302 and 

consolidated cases). The Court also 

indicated that EPA was expected to 

continue to administer CAIR in the 

interim until judicial review of CSAPR 

was completed. 

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

issued the decision in EME Homer City 

to vacate and remand CSAPR and 

ordered EPA to continue administrating 

CAIR ‘‘pending . . . development 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 then filed 

petitions for certiorari to the U.S. 

Supreme Court, which the Supreme 

Court granted on June 24, 2013. 

Nonetheless, EPA intends to continue to 

act in accordance with the EME Homer 

City opinion. 

In light of these unique circumstances 

and for the reasons explained below, to 

the extent that attainment and 

maintenance is due to emission 

reductions associated with CAIR, EPA is 

here determining that those reductions 

are sufficiently permanent and 

enforceable for purposes of CAA 

sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and 175A. 

As directed by the D.C. Circuit, CAIR 

remains in place and enforceable until 

EPA promulgates a valid replacement 

rule to substitute for CAIR. As noted 

above, the Columbus area PM2.5

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan does not rely on the emission 

reductions from CAIR, but attainment of 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard in the 

Columbus area did result, in part, from 

the implementation of CAIR and CAIR 

will contribute to maintenance in the 

future. Ohio submitted a CAIR SIP, 

which was approved by EPA on 

February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6034). On July 

15, 2009, Ohio submitted revisions to its 

CAIR SIP, which EPA approved on 

September 25, 2009 (74 FR 48857). In its 

redesignation request, Ohio notes that in 

2009 facilities began implementing 

control programs to address CAIR, and 

that CAIR will provide significant 

reductions in NOX, SO2, primary PM2.5

emissions until such time as it is 

replaced by a new transport rule. CAIR 

was, thus, in place and getting emission 

reductions when the Columbus area was 

monitoring attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard during the 2008– 

2012 period. 

To the extent that Ohio is relying on 

CAIR to support continued attainment 

in the Columbus area, the recent 

directive from the D.C. Circuit in EME 

Homer City ensures that the emission 

reductions associated with CAIR will be 

permanent and enforceable for the 

necessary time period. EPA has been 

ordered by the Court to develop a new 

rule to address interstate transport to 

replace CSAPR and the opinion makes 

clear that after promulgating that new 

rule EPA must provide states an 

opportunity to draft and submit SIPs to 

implement that rule. Thus, CAIR will 

remain in place until EPA has 

promulgated a final rule through a 

notice-and-comment rulemaking 

process, states have had an opportunity 

to draft and submit SIPs in response to 

it, EPA has reviewed the SIPs to 

determine if they can be approved, and 

EPA has taken action on the SIPs, 

including promulgating FIPs if 

appropriate. The Court’s clear 

instruction to EPA is that it must 

continue to administer CAIR until a 

valid replacement exists, and thus EPA 

believes that CAIR emission reductions 

may be relied upon until the necessary 

actions are taken by EPA and states to 

administer CAIR’s replacement. 

Furthermore, the Court’s instruction 

provides an additional backstop: By 

definition, any rule that replaces CAIR 

and meets the Court’s direction would 

require upwind states to have SIPs that 

eliminate any significant contributions 

to downwind nonattainment and 

prevent interference with maintenance 

in downwind areas. 

Moreover, in vacating CSAPR and 

requiring EPA to continue administering 

CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that 

the consequences of vacating CAIR 

‘‘might be more severe now in light of 

the reliance interests accumulated over 

the intervening four years.’’ EME Homer 

City, 696 F.3d at 38. The reliance 

interests accumulated include the 

interests of states that reasonably 

assumed they could rely on reductions 

associated with CAIR which brought 

certain nonattainment areas into 

attainment with the NAAQS. If EPA 

were prevented from relying on 

reductions associated with CAIR in 

redesignation actions, states would be 

forced to impose additional, redundant 

reductions on top of those achieved by 

CAIR. EPA believes this is precisely the 

type of irrational result the Court sought 

to avoid by ordering EPA to continue 

administering CAIR. For these reasons 

also, EPA believes it is appropriate to 

allow states to rely on CAIR, and the 

existing emissions reductions achieved 

by CAIR, as sufficiently permanent and 

enforceable for regulatory purposes, 

such as redesignations. Following 

promulgation of the replacement rule 

for CSAPR, EPA will review existing 

SIPs as appropriate to identify whether 

there are any issues that need to be 

addressed. 

ii. Maintenance Plan Precursor 

Evaluation Resulting From Court 

Decisions 

With regard to the redesignation of 

the Columbus area, in evaluating the 

effect of the Court’s remand of EPA’s 

implementation rule, which included 

presumptions against consideration of 

VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, 

EPA in this proposal is also considering 

the impact of the decision on the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52749 

maintenance plan required under 

sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the 

CAA. To begin with, EPA notes that the 

area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard and that the state has shown 

that attainment of this standard is due 

to permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions, as noted above. 

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 annual PM2.5 standard in the 

Columbus 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 on 

documentation provided by the state 

and supporting information, EPA 

believes that the maintenance plan for 

the Columbus area need not include any 

additional emission reductions of VOC 

or ammonia in order to provide for 

continued maintenance of the standard. 

Emissions inventories used in the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the 

2012 p.m.2.5 NAAQS show that VOC 

and ammonia emissions in the 

Columbus area are projected to decrease 

by 19,358 TPY and 119 TPY, 

respectively, between 2007 and 2020. 

See table 9 below. While the RIA 

emissions inventories are only projected 

to 2020, there is no reason to believe 

that the projected downward trends 

would not continue through 2023. 

Given that the Columbus area is already 

attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard, even with the current levels of 

VOC and ammonia emissions in this 

area, the downward trends in VOC and 

ammonia would be consistent with 

continued attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard in the Columbus 

area. Indeed, projected emission 

reductions for PM2.5 precursors that the 

state has addressed for purposes of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard (see tables 

6 through 8 above) also indicate that the 

Columbus area should continue to attain 

the NAAQS following the precursor 

control strategies that the state of Ohio 

and other upwind states have already 

elected to pursue. Even if ammonia 

emissions were to increase 

unexpectedly between 2020 and 2023, 

the overall emissions reductions 

projected in SO2, NOX, primary PM2.5, 

and VOC (see 72 FR 32257, June 12, 

2009) would be sufficient to offset the 

increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations 

resulting from the hypothetical increase 

in ammonia emissions. For these 

reasons, EPA believes that even a 

reversal of the downward trend in local 

emissions of ammonia (and VOC) would 

not cause monitored PM2.5 levels to 

violate the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 

during the maintenance period. 

TABLE 9—COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2020 VOC AND AMMONIA EMISSIONS TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE

COLUMBUS AREA BASED ON RIA EMISSIONS ESTIMATES FOR THE 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Source sector 

VOC Ammonia 

2007 2020 Net change 

2007–2020 2007 2020 Net change 2007–2020 

Fires ......................................................... 77.48 77.48 0.0 5.62 5.62 0.0 

Area .......................................................... 20,305.24 20,643.97 338.73 4,640.75 4,853.36 212.61 

Non-Road Mobile ..................................... 7,574.55 4,381.79 ¥3,192.76 11.20 12.80 1.6 

On-Road Mobile ....................................... 25,006.05 8,430.70 ¥16,575.35 807.16 423.61 ¥383.55 

Point ......................................................... 1,423.57 1,495.24 71.67 242.31 292.41 50.1 

Totals ................................................ 54,386.89 35,029.18 ¥19,357.71 5,707.04 5,587.80 ¥119.24 

c. EPA’s Conclusion for Ohio’s 

Maintenance Demonstration 

Based on the information summarized 

above, we conclude that Ohio has 

adequately demonstrated maintenance 

of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in the 

Columbus area for a period of ten years 

from the time that EPA may be expected 

to complete rulemaking on the state’s 

PM2.5 redesignation request. 

4. Monitoring Network 

Ohio commits to continue monitoring 

PM2.5 levels according to the EPAapproved monitoring plan during the 

maintenance period, as required to 

ensure maintenance of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard. If changes are needed in 

the PM2.5 monitoring network, OEPA 

will work with the EPA to ensure the 

adequacy of the monitoring network. 

5. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Continued attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard in the Columbus 

area depends, in part, on the state’s 

efforts toward tracking indicators of 

continued attainment during the 

maintenance period. Ohio’s plan for 

verifying continued attainment of the 

standard in the Columbus area consists 

of continued ambient PM2.5 monitoring 

in accordance with the requirements of 

40 CFR part 58 and continued tracking 

of emissions through periodic updates 

of the PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor 

emissions inventory for the Columbus 

area, as required by the Federal 

Consolidated Emission Reporting Rule 

(codified at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A). 

6. Contingency Plan 

The contingency plan provisions are 

designed to correct, as expeditiously as 

possible, or prevent a violation of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard that might 

occur after redesignation of an area to 

attainment of the standard. Section 

175A of the CAA requires that a 

maintenance plan include such 

contingency measures as EPA deems 

necessary to ensure 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. 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, Ohio has adopted a contingency 

plan for the Columbus area to address 

possible future violations of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard in this area. 

Under Ohio’s plan, if a violation of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard occurs in 

the Columbus area or if a two-year 

average of the weighted annual mean 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
52750 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

PM2.5 concentration at any monitoring 

site in the area equals or exceeds 15.0 

mg/m3, Ohio will implement an ‘‘Action 

Level Response’’ to conduct an analysis 

to determine if the unacceptable PM2.5

concentration is due to an exceptional 

event, malfunction, or noncompliance 

with a source permit condition or a rule 

requirement. If the air quality problem 

is found to not be due to one of these 

situations, OEPA and the local 

metropolitan planning organization or 

regional council of government will 

determine the additional emission 

control measures needed to assure 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard. Ohio’s candidate contingency 

control measures include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

• Diesel emission control strategies; 

• Alternative fuel requirements, such 

as liquid propane and compressed 

natural gas, and diesel retrofit programs 

for fleet vehicle operations; 

• Tighter PM2.5, SO2, and primary 

PM2.5 emissions offsets for new and 

modified major sources; 

• Controls on impact crushers located 

at recycle scrap yards using wet 

suppression; 

• Upgrade of wet suppression 

requirements at concrete manufacturing 

facilities; and 

• Additional NOX RACT 

requirements statewide. 

Emission control measures that can be 

implemented in a short time will be 

selected and will be in place within 18 

months after the close of the calendar 

year that prompted the action level 

response. Ohio will also consider the 

timing of the action level trigger and 

determine if additional, significant new 

emission control regulations, not 

currently included as part of the 

maintenance plan, will be implemented 

in a timely manner and will negate the 

need for additional contingency 

measures. OEPA also notes that the 

following NOX, SO2, and primary PM2.5

source types are potentially subject to 

additional emission control 

requirements: (1) Industrial, 

Commercial, Institutional (ICI) boilers; 

(2) EGUs; (3) process heaters; (4) 

internal combustion engines; (5) 

combustion turbines; (6) sources with 

emissions exceeding 100 TPY; (7) fleet 

vehicles; (8) concrete manufacturers; 

and, (9) aggregate processing plants. 

OEPA commits to implement a 

‘‘Warning Level Response’’ if any 

monitor records a weighted annual 

average PM2.5 concentration of 15.0 mg/ 

m3 or greater in a single calendar year. 

This trigger will result in a study to 

determine whether this PM2.5

concentration indicates a trend toward 

higher PM2.5 concentrations or whether 

emissions are increasing, threatening to 

cause future violations of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard. If a worsening 

PM2.5 concentration trend is expected or 

if a future violation of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard is projected to occur, the 

control measures needed to reverse the 

trend will be selected and implemented, 

taking into consideration the economic 

and social impacts of the controls and 

the ease and timing of implementation. 

Implementation of the controls will take 

place no later than 12 months after the 

calendar year in which they are selected 

and adopted. 

EPA believes that Ohio’s contingency 

plan satisfies the pertinent requirements 

of section 175A of the CAA. 

7. Provision for Future Update of the 

Annual PM2.5 Maintenance Plan 

As required by section 175A(b) of the 

CAA, Ohio commits to submit to EPA 

an updated maintenance plan eight 

years after EPA redesignates the 

Columbus area to attainment of the 1997 

annual standard to cover an additional 

10-year period beyond the initial 10- 

year maintenance period. As required 

by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio has 

also committed to retain and implement 

the emission control measures 

contained in the SIP prior to 

redesignation. If changes are needed in 

the SIP control measures, Ohio commits 

to submit these changes to EPA as 

requested SIP revisions. 

Finally, the state affirms that Ohio has 

the legal authority to implement and 

enforce the requirements of the 

maintenance plan SIP revision and 

commits to continue the enforcement of 

all regulations that relate to the 

emission of all PM2.5 precursors in the 

Columbus area. 

E. Has Ohio adopted acceptable MVEBs 

for the PM2.5 maintenance period? 

1. How are MVEBs developed and what 

are the MVEBs for the Columbus area? 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, 

transportation plans and Transportation 

Improvement Programs (TIPs) must be 

evaluated for conformity with SIPs. 

Consequently, Ohio’s PM2.5

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan provide MVEBs, conformance with 

which will assure that motor vehicle 

emissions are at or below levels that can 

be expected to provide for attainment 

and maintenance of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard. Ohio’s redesignation 

request includes mobile source emission 

budgets for NOX and primary PM2.5 for 

2015 and 2022. Table 10 shows the 2015 

and 2022 MVEBs and ‘‘safety margins’’ 

for the Columbus area. Table 10 also 

shows the estimated 2015 and 2022 

mobile source emissions for the 

Columbus area. Ohio did not provide 

MVEBs for SO2 because it concluded, 

consistent with EPA’s presumptions 

regarding this PM2.5 precursor, that 

emissions of this pollutant from motor 

vehicles are not significant contributors 

to the Columbus area’s PM2.5 air quality 

problem. 

TABLE 10—2015 AND 2022 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION BUDGETS FOR THE CHICAGO AREA

[TPY] 

Year 

Estimated emissions Safety margin Motor vehicle emission 

budgets 

Primary 

PM2.5 NOX Primary PM2.5 NOX Primary 

PM2.5 NOX

2015 ......................................................... 759.53 21,812.27 113.93 3,271.84 873.46 25,084.11 

2022 ......................................................... 486.20 10,597.83 72.93 1,589.67 559.13 12,187.50 

Tables 6, 8, and 10 show substantial 

decreases in on-road mobile source NOX

and primary PM2.5 emissions from 2008 

to 2015 and from 2008 to 2022. These 

emission reductions are expected 

because newer vehicles subject to more 

stringent emission standards are 

continually replacing older, higher 

emitting vehicles. EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2015 and 2022 MVEBs for 

the Columbus area into the SIP because, 

based on our review of the submitted 

PM2.5 maintenance plan, we have 

determined that the maintenance plan 

and MVEBs meet EPA’s criteria found in 

40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) for determining that 

MVEBs are adequate for use in 

transportation conformity 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52751 

13While EPA’s conformity guidance also labels 

this margin as a safety margin, EPA here is using 

the term ‘‘safety margin’’ to denote the margin by 

which Ohio’s MVEBs exceed projected emissions. 

determinations and are approvable 

because, when considered together with 

the submitted maintenance plan’s 

projected emissions, provide for 

maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard in the Columbus area. 

2. What are safety margins? 

As noted in table 10, Ohio has 

included safety margins in the 2015 and 

2022 MVEBs. Ohio notes that EPA’s 

transportation conformity regulations 

allow the use of safety margins in the 

development of MVEBs for maintenance 

plans. The safety margins selected by 

OEPA would provide for a 15 percent 

increase in mobile source emissions for 

2022 above projected levels of these 

emissions. These safety margins are 

only a fraction of the margins by which 

overall emissions in the area are 

expected to be below emission levels 

associated with air quality meeting the 

air quality standard.13 Thus, these 

added safety margins will not result in 

on-road mobile source emissions 

exceeding the 2008 on-road mobile 

source attainment levels, and will not 

threaten exceedance of the 2008 total 

attainment level emissions in the 

Columbus area. Therefore, these safety 

margins are acceptable under EPA’s 

transportation conformity requirements. 

F. Are the 2005 and 2007 base year 

PM2.5-related emissions inventories for 

the Columbus area approvable under 

section 172(c)(3) of the CAA? 

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

states to submit a comprehensive, 

accurate, and current inventory of 

emissions for nonattainment areas. For 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas, states have 

typically submitted primary PM2.5, SO2, 

and NOX emission inventories covering 

one of the years of a three-year period 

during which an area has monitored 

violation of the PM2.5 standard. Ohio 

chose to derive PM2.5 precursor 

emissions for 2005 for purposes of 

meeting the requirements of section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA. Ohio documented 

these emissions and submitted this 

documentation with the redesignation 

request for the Columbus area. Ohio also 

submitted the 2005 base year emissions 

inventory documentation on July 18, 

2008, as an accompanying document 

with the state’s PM2.5 attainment 

demonstration for the Columbus area. 

1. EPA’s Base Year Emissions Inventory 

SIP Policy 

EPA’s SIP policy for base year 

emissions inventories for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard are specified 

generally in three policy statements. 

EPA’s main SIP requirements for a base 

year PM2.5-related emissions inventory 

are specified in section II.K of EPA’s 

April 25, 2007, implementation rule for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard (72 FR 

20586, 20647). This rule requires the 

base year emissions inventory to be 

approved by the EPA as a SIP element 

(72 FR 20647), and requires the 

emissions inventory to cover the 

emissions of NOX, SO2, VOC, ammonia, 

and primary PM2.5 (72 FR 20648). The 

coverage of PM2.5 precursor emissions 

and emissions of primary PM2.5 is 

required under 40 CFR part 51 subpart 

A and 40 CFR 51.1008 (72 FR 20648). 

Detailed emissions inventory guidance 

for PM2.5 (and other pollutants) is 

contained in EPA’s ‘‘Emissions 

Inventory Guidance for Implementation 

of Ozone and Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations’’ (August 2005, EPA–454/

R–05–001). Finally, a November 18, 

2002, policy memorandum titled ‘‘2002 

Base Year Emission Inventory SIP 

Planning: 8-hr Ozone, PM2.5 and 

Regional Haze Programs’’ recommends 

that the PM2.5-based emissions 

inventory be developed for a base year 

of 2002. It is noted that OEPA has 

generally followed all of these 

guidelines in the development of the 

base year emissions inventory for the 

PM2.5 SIP, with the exception that OEPA 

has chosen to develop a base year 

emissions inventory for 2005 rather than 

2002. 2005 is one of the years of several 

three-year periods during which the 

Columbus area violated the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard, with 2003–2005 and 

2004–2006 being violation periods. 

Given that 2005 is one of the years in 

which the Columbus area violated the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard, 2005 is an 

acceptable base year for the required 

emissions inventories. 

2. 2005 and 2007 Base Year PM2.5- 

Related Emission Inventories for the 

Columbus Area 

Ohio documented the 2005 primary 

PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 emissions in a 

February 2008 document titled ‘‘Ohio 

2005 Base Year PM2.5 SIP Inventory.’’ 

This documentation covers the 

derivation of 2005 PM2.5 precursor 

emissions for the entire state of Ohio, 

and summarizes the derivation of 

emissions by source type and major 

source category. Although the February 

2008 emissions inventory 

documentation covers the derivation of 

on-road mobile source emissions using 

EPA’s MOBILE6 emissions factor model, 

this derivation of on-road mobile source 

emissions has been supplanted by a 

subsequent recalculation of the on-road 

mobile source emissions using EPA’s 

MOVES2010 mobile source emissions 

model. The revised calculation of the 

on-road mobile source emissions for the 

Columbus area is documented in a May 

2011 document titled ‘‘Central Ohio OnRoad Mobile Emissions Estimates.’’ This 

emissions documentation was included 

with Ohio’s PM2.5 redesignation request 

for the Columbus area. 

The derived 2005 emissions totals by 

major source sector are included in 

Ohio’s May 2011 PM2.5 redesignation 

request. The following summarizes the 

derivation of the emissions for the major 

source categories and the emissions 

totals by major source category for the 

Columbus area, as documented in 

OEPA’s May 2011 PM2.5 request support 

document. 

Emissions and source-specific data for 

point sources were developed for the 

2002 emissions inventories by the 

OEPA. The primary sources of data for 

point sources were annual emission 

reports submitted by individual source 

facilities, which included detailed 

emissions data files (STARShip files). 

Under Ohio’s emissions reporting rule, 

source facilities are required to submit 

emission reports every year, including 

2005. These reports include emissions 

along with source activity levels and 

emission control information. The May 

2011 emissions documentation 

summary covers in detail the derivation 

of emissions for each source type 

covered as stationary point sources. The 

Columbus area point source emission 

totals are specified below, as 

summarized in Ohio’s May 2011 PM2.5

redesignation request support 

document. 

Area source emissions were generally 

derived by multiplying source categoryspecific emission factors by certain 

indicator levels of source activity 

(source surrogates), such as county 

populations, employment estimates, and 

commodity sales estimates. The 

emission estimation techniques for each 

source category are thoroughly 

documented in the May 2011 base year 

emissions inventory documentation. In 

general, OEPA has followed emission 

estimation procedures recommended by 

the EPA. Where appropriate, OEPA has 

defined the emission estimation 

approaches used to convert the source 

category-specific emission factors and 

source activity levels (derived from the 

county-specific surrogate/indicator 

levels, such as population, fuel use, 

employment, etc.) into county-specific 

emission levels. The May 2011 

emissions inventory documentation 

does not specify the county-specific 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
52752 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

pollutant emission levels by source 

type, but simply summarizes the source 

or surrogate information and emission 

factor information used to derive the 

area source emissions. The emissions 

summarized here were taken from 

OEPA’s May 2011 PM2.5 redesignation 

request documentation. 

LADCO used EPA’s National Mobile 

Inventory Model (NMIM) output files 

and processed these files through their 

emissions model (generally used to 

prepare emissions input data files for 

photochemical modeling of ozone and 

PM2.5) to estimate 2005 off-road mobile 

source emissions for all non-road 

mobile source types except: (1) Railroad 

locomotives; (2) aircraft operations 

(including aircraft auxiliary power 

units, landings, takeoffs, and other 

aircraft operating modes); and, (3) 

commercial marine vessels. LADCO 

supplied the area source emission 

estimates to Ohio for inclusion in the 

2005 base year emissions inventory. The 

May 2011 emissions inventory 

documentation summarizes the sources 

of input data used to derive output 

emissions data from NMIM. 

For the three area source types not 

covered by NMIM, Ohio obtained source 

activity data and emissions from 

LADCO, who contracted with several 

consultants to derive emissions specific 

to areas within the LADCO region, 

including areas within Ohio. 

For the 2005 on-road mobile source 

emissions estimates, OEPA relied on 

modeled mobile source VMT supplied 

by the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning 

Commission (MORPC), and used EPA’s 

MOVES2010 mobile source emissions 

model to calculate the emissions. 

MORPC used a combination of a travel 

demand modeling system (which 

covered much of but not all of the 

Columbus PM2.5 nonattainemnt area) 

and Highway Performance Monitoring 

Systems-derived (HPMS-derived) traffic 

data (used for portions of the Columbus 

area not covered by the travel demand 

modeling) to estimate VMT and speed 

data by functional roadway class. These 

data were input into MOVES2010 to 

derive on-road mobile source emissions 

for the Columbus area. 

Table 11 (taken from OEPA’s May 

2011 p.m.2.5 redesignation request 

document) gives the 2005 NOX, primary 

PM2.5 and SO2 emissions totals by major 

source category for the Columbus area. 

TABLE 11—2005 FINE PARTICULATE AND PRECURSOR EMISSIONS FOR THE COLUMBUS AREA

[TPY] 

Soure type NOX Primary 

PM2.5 SO2

Point Sources .............................................................................................................................. 25,188.87 1,478.64 111,266.53 

Area Sources ............................................................................................................................... 5,487.2 1,552.43 566.95 

On-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................ 53,390.61 1,660.33 864.22 

Off-Road Mobile Sources ............................................................................................................ 14,609.69 1,058.53 1,603.24 

Totals .................................................................................................................................... 98,656.37 5,749.93 114,300.88 

As noted above, EPA’s emissions 

inventory guidelines call for the 

documentation of all PM2.5 precursor 

emissions for purposes of meeting the 

requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA for the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard. Ohio’s 2005 emissions 

inventory covers the emissions of 

primary PM2.5, NOX, and SO2, but does 

not cover emissions of VOC and 

ammonia (NH3), which are also PM2.5

precursors. To rectify this problem, 

OEPA emailed EPA on April 30, 2013, 

to supplement its original information 

on NOX, primary PM2.5, and SO2

emissions information with information 

on 2007 VOC and ammonia emissions 

for the Columbus area. Table 12 gives 

these emissions for the major source 

sectors. 

TABLE 12—2007 VOC AND AMMONIA

EMISSIONS FOR THE COLUMBUS AREA

[TPY] 

Source sector Ammonia VOC 

Point Sources ........... 232.67 1,212.46 

Area Sources ............ 5,160.67 21,415.88 

Non-Road Mobile 

Sources ................. 11.64 8,658.89 

On-Road Mobile 

Sources ................. 696.38 17,883.04 

TABLE 12—2007 VOC AND AMMONIA

EMISSIONS FOR THE COLUMBUS

AREA—Continued 

[TPY] 

Source sector Ammonia VOC 

Totals ................. 6,101.37 49,170.27 

We find that the state has thoroughly 

documented the 2005/2007 emissions 

for primary PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors 

in the Columbus area. We also find that 

Ohio has used acceptable techniques 

and supporting information to derive 

these emissions. Therefore, we are 

proposing to approve Ohio’s 2005/2007 

base year emissions inventory for the 

Columbus area for purposes of meeting 

the emission inventory requirements of 

section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed 

actions do not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law and the CAA. For that reason, 

these proposed actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 52753 

• do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because a 

determination of attainment is an action 

that affects the status of a geographical 

area and does not impose any new 

regulatory requirements on tribes, 

impact any existing sources of air 

pollution on tribal lands, nor impair the 

maintenance of ozone national ambient 

air quality standards in tribal lands. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: August 7, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–20651 Filed 8–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 229 

[Docket No. 130703586–3586–01] 

RIN 0648–BD43 

Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental 

to Commercial Fishing Operations; 

Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan 

Regulations 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS hereby proposes to 

amend the regulations implementing the 

Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan 

(Plan). This proposed rule would revise 

the Plan by eliminating the consequence 

closure strategy enacted in 2010 based 

on deliberations by the Harbor Porpoise 

Take Reduction Team. This action is 

necessary to prevent the improper 

triggering of consequence closure areas 

based on target harbor porpoise bycatch 

rates that no longer accurately reflect 

actual bycatch in New England sink 

gillnets due to fishery-wide changes in 

fishing practices. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

September 10, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by RIN 

0648–BD43, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Mary Colligan, Assistant Regional 

Administrator for Protected Resources, 

NMFS Northeast Region, 55 Great 

Republic Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930, 

Attn: Harbor Porpoise Proposed Rule. 

• Fax: 978–281–9394 Attn: Harbor 

Porpoise Proposed Rule 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter 

‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish 

to remain anonymous). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Swails, NMFS, Northeast Region, 978– 

282–8482, Kate.Swails@noaa.gov; Kristy 

Long, NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources, 301–427–8440, Kristy.Long@

noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access 

Several of the background documents 

for the Plan and the take reduction 

planning process can be downloaded 

from the Plan Web site at http://

www.nero.noaa.gov/hptrp/. Copies of 

the draft Environmental Assessment for 

this action can be found on the Plan’s 

Web site. The complete text of the 

regulations implementing the Plan can 

be found either in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 229.33 or 

downloaded from the Web site, along 

with a guide to the regulations. 

Background 

The Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction 

Plan (Plan) was implemented in late 

1998 pursuant to section 118(f) of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) to reduce the level of serious 

injury and mortality of the Gulf of 

Maine/Bay of Fundy (GOM/BOF) stock 

of harbor porpoises (63 FR 66464, 

December 2, 1998). NMFS amended the 

Plan in 2010 (75 FR 7383, February 19, 

2010) to address increased mortalities of 

harbor porpoises in New England and 

Mid-Atlantic commercial gillnet 

fisheries due to non-compliance with 

the Plan requirements and observed 

interactions occurring outside of 

existing management areas. 

The 2010 amendments, based largely 

on consensus recommendations from 

the Team, included the expansion of 

seasonal and temporal requirements 

within the Plan’s management areas, the 

incorporation of additional management 

areas, and the creation of a consequence 

closure strategy in which three closure 

areas off the coast of New England 

would prohibit the use of gillnet gear if 

target rates of harbor porpoise bycatch 

were exceeded. 

The Plan was projected to reduce 

harbor porpoise bycatch below the 

potential biological removal (PBR) level 

without the implementation of the 

consequence closures. Consequence 

closures were intended only as a 

backstop measure to ensure compliance 

with pinger requirements. The intent of 

implementing the consequence closure 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1