Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48087 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

10. Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action may be one of a category 

of actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. 

This proposed rule involves 

disestablishing a safety zone, so this 

action may be categorically excluded, 

under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g) of 

the Instruction. 

We seek any comments or information 

that may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, and 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

§ 165.120 [Removed] 

■ 2. Remove § 165.120 Safety Zone: 

Chelsea River, Boston Inner Harbor, 

Boston, MA. 

Dated: July 22, 2013. 

J.C. O’Connor III, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Boston. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19104 Filed 8–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0564; FRL–9844–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

Redesignation of the Canton-Massillon 

Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual 

and 2006 24-Hour Standards for Fine 

Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On June 26, 2012, the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency 

submitted a request for EPA to 

redesignate the Canton-Massillon area 

(Stark County), Ohio, nonattainment 

area to attainment of the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour standards for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5). EPA is 

proposing to grant Ohio’s request. EPA 

is proposing to determine that the 

Canton-Massillon area attains the 1997 

annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard, based on the most recent three 

years of certified air quality data. EPA 

is proposing to approve, as revisions to 

the Ohio state implementation plan 

(SIP), the state’s plan for maintaining 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS or standard) through 2025 for 

the area. EPA is proposing to approve 

the 2005 and 2008 emissions 

inventories for the Canton-Massillon 

area as meeting the comprehensive 

emissions inventory requirement of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). Ohio’s 

maintenance plan submission includes 

a motor vehicle emission budget 

(MVEB) for the mobile source 

contribution of PM2.5 and nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) to the Canton-Massillon 

area for transportation conformity 

purposes; EPA is proposing to approve 

the MVEBs for 2015 and 2025 into the 

Ohio SIP for transportation conformity 

purposes. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 6, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0564, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-Mail: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48088 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section (AR– 

18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012– 

0564. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Carolyn 

Persoon, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 353–8290 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carolyn Persoon, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8290, 

persoon.carolyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplementary information section is 

arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What actions is EPA proposing to take? 

III. What is the background for these actions? 

IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to 

attainment? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s 

request? 

1. Attainment 

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D and Has a Fully Approved SIP 

Under Section 110(k) (Sections 

107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)) 

3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Due 

to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions Resulting From 

Implementation of the SIP and 

Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control 

Regulations and Other Permanent and 

Enforceable Reductions (Section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii)) 

4. Ohio Has a Fully Approved Maintenance 

Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the 

CAA (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)) 

5. Adequacy of Ohio’s MVEB 

6. 2005 and 2008 Comprehensive 

Emissions Inventory 

7. Summary of Proposed Actions 

VI. What are the effects of EPA’s proposed 

actions? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. 

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What actions is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to take several 

actions related to redesignation of the 

Canton-Massillon area to attainment for 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA is proposing to determine 

that the area is attaining the NAAQS for 

PM2.5, based on quality-assured and 

state certified ambient air monitoring 

data for 2010–2012, the most recent 

three years of quality-assured data for 

the area. EPA is proposing to find that 

Ohio meets the requirements for 

redesignation of the Canton-Massillon 

area to attainment of the 1997 and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS under section 

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

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

Ohio’s annual PM2.5 maintenance plan 

for the Canton-Massillon area as a 

revision to the Ohio SIP, including the 

MVEB for PM2.5 and NOX emissions for 

the mobile source contribution of the 

Canton-Massillon area. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to approve 

Ohio’s emissions inventories as 

satisfying the requirement in section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA for a current, 

accurate and comprehensive emission 

inventory. These emission inventories 

include primary PM2.5, NOX and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) inventories included in its 

June 26, 2012, initial submittal and 2007 

emissions for volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and ammonia 

inventories included in a supplemental 

submission to EPA on April 29, 2013. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to grant 

the request from the state of Ohio to 

change the designation of Stark County 

(the Canton-Massillon area) from 

nonattainment to attainment of the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

III. What is the background for these 

actions? 

Fine particulate pollution can be 

emitted directly from a source (primary 

PM2.5) or formed secondarily through 

chemical reactions in the atmosphere 

involving precursor pollutants emitted 

from a variety of sources. Sulfates are a 

type of secondary particulate formed 

from SO2 emissions from power plants 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48089 

and industrial facilities. Nitrates, 

another common type of secondary 

particulate, are formed from combustion 

emissions of NOX from power plants, 

mobile sources and other combustion 

sources. 

The first air quality standards for 

PM2.5 were promulgated on July 18, 

1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated 

an annual standard at a level of 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) of 

ambient air, based on a three year 

average of the annual mean PM2.5

concentrations at each monitoring site. 

In the same rulemaking, EPA 

promulgated a 24-hour PM2.5 standard at 

65 mg/m3, based on a three year average 

of the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations at each monitoring site. 

On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, EPA 

published air quality area designations 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 

based on air quality data for calendar 

years 2001–2003. In that rulemaking, 

EPA designated the Canton-Massillon 

area as nonattainment for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard. 

On October 17, 2006, at 71 FR 61144, 

EPA retained the annual PM2.5 standard 

at 15 mg/m3 (2006 annual PM2.5

standard), but revised the 24-hour 

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 or Court) remanded this 

standard to EPA for further 

consideration. See American Farm 

Bureau Federation and National Pork 

Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 

F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). On December 

14, 2012, EPA finalized a rule revising 

the PM2.5 annual standard to 12 mg/m3

based on current scientific evidence 

regarding the protection of public 

health. Since the Canton-Massillon area 

is designated as nonattainment for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards, today’s proposed action 

addresses redesignation to attainment 

only for these standards. 

In this proposed redesignation, EPA 

takes into account the January 4, 2013, 

Court ruling in Natural Resources 

Defense Council v. EPA, in which the 

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

Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

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

the ‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

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

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

Also noted are the decisions of the 

D.C. Circuit regarding the status of the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 

In the first of the two Court decisions, 

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

issued EME Homer City Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), 

which vacated and remanded CSAPR 

and ordered EPA to continue 

administering the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) ‘‘pending . . . 

development of a valid replacement.’’ 

EME Homer City at 38. The D.C. Circuit 

denied all petitions for rehearing on 

January 24, 2013. On August 21, 2012, 

the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to 

vacate CSAPR. In that decision, the 

Court also ordered EPA to continue 

administering CAIR ‘‘pending the 

promulgation of a valid replacement.’’ 

EME Homer City, 696 F.3d at 38. The 

D.C. Circuit denied all petitions for 

rehearing on January 24, 2013. EPA and 

other parties filed petitions for certiorari 

to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 24, 

2013, the Supreme Court granted 

certiorari and agreed to review the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision in EME Homer City. 

The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari, 

by itself, does not alter the status of 

CAIR or CSAPR. At this time, CAIR 

remains in place. EPA has determined 

that the status of both CSAPR and CAIR 

do not affect the ability of the CantonMassillon area to attain or maintain the 

PM NAAQS, which is discussed in more 

detail in section V.3.aii. 

IV. What are the criteria for 

redesignation to attainment? 

The CAA sets forth the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for 

redesignation provided that: (1) The 

Administrator determines that the area 

has attained the applicable NAAQS 

based on current air quality data; (2) the 

Administrator has fully approved an 

applicable SIP for the area under section 

110(k) of the CAA; (3) the Administrator 

determines that the improvement in air 

quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions 

resulting from implementation of the 

applicable SIP, Federal air pollution 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions; (4) 

the Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area meeting 

the requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA; and (5) the state containing the 

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area for purposes of redesignation 

under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s 

request? 

EPA is proposing to redesignate the 

Canton-Massillon area to attainment of 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS and is proposing to approve 

Ohio’s maintenance plan for the area 

and other related SIP revisions. The 

bases for these actions follow. 

1. Attainment 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Canton-Massillon area is attaining 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS based upon the most recent 

three years of complete, certified and 

quality-assured data. Under EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the annual 

primary and secondary PM2.5 standards 

are met when the annual arithmetic 

mean concentration, as determined in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 

mg/m3 at all monitoring sites in the area. 

Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR 50.13 

and in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N, the 24-hour primary and 

secondary PM2.5 standards are met when 

the 98th percentile 24-hour 

concentration is less than or equal to 35 

mg/m3. 

EPA has reviewed the ambient air 

quality monitoring data in the CantonMassillon area, consistent with the 

requirements contained at 40 CFR part 

50. EPA’s review focused on state 

certified data recorded in the EPA Air 

Quality System (AQS) database for the 

Canton-Massillon PM2.5 nonattainment 

area for 2009–2011 and for 2010–2012. 

The Canton-Massillon area has two 

monitors located in Stark County, Ohio. 

Preliminary calculations of design 

values for 2010–2012, the most recent 

three full years of data, the two monitors 

had design values of 13.0 and 11.8 mg/ 

m3 for the 1997 annual standard, and 29 

and 26 mg/m3 for the 2006 24-hour 

standard. The monitors in the CantonMassillon area recorded complete data 

for 2010–2012 in accordance with 

criteria set forth by EPA in 40 CFR part 

50, appendix N, where a complete year 

of air quality data comprises four 

calendar quarters, with each quarter 

containing data with at least 75% 

capture of the scheduled sampling days. 

Available data are considered to be 

sufficient for comparison to the NAAQS 

if three consecutive complete years of 

data exist. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48090 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—THE 1997 ANNUAL AND 2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES FOR THE CANTON-MASSILLON MONITORS

(IN μg/m3) 

County Site 

Annual 

standard 

2009–2011 

24-Hour 

standard 

2009–2011 

Annual 

standard 

2010–2012 

24-Hour 

standard 

2010–2012 

Stark, OH1 .................................................................. 391510017 13.4 30 13.0 29 

Stark, OH ................................................................... 391510020 11.9 28 11.8 26 

1 Design values for the site 391510017 were incomplete for 2009–2011 due to one quarter in 2009, substitution analysis for 2009–2011 

showed attainment for the annual standard. 2010–2012 data was complete for both standards. 

EPA’s review of these monitoring data 

supports EPA’s determination that the 

Canton-Massillon area has monitored 

attainment for the most recent three 

years of data. Therefore, EPA proposes 

to determine that the Canton-Massillon 

area is attaining the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards. 

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D and Has a Fully Approved SIP 

Under Section 110(k) (Sections 

107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)) 

We believe that Ohio has met all 

currently applicable SIP requirements 

for purposes of redesignation for the 

Canton-Massillon area under section 

110 of the CAA (general SIP 

requirements). We are also proposing to 

find that the Ohio SIP meets all SIP 

requirements currently applicable for 

purposes of redesignation under part D 

of title I of the CAA, in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). We are 

proposing to find that all applicable 

requirements of the Ohio SIP for 

purposes of redesignation have been 

met, in accordance with section 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As discussed below, in 

this action EPA is proposing to approve 

Ohio’s 2005 and 2008 emissions 

inventory, as well as the supplemental 

submission to the emissions inventory 

of 2007 VOC and ammonia data made 

on April 30, 2013, as meeting the 

section 172(c)(3) comprehensive 

emissions inventory requirement. In 

making these proposed determinations, 

we have ascertained which SIP 

requirements are applicable for 

purposes of redesignation, and 

concluded that SIP measures meeting 

those requirements are approved or will 

be approved by the time of final 

rulemaking. 

a. Ohio Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements for Purposes of 

Redesignation of the Canton-Massillon 

Area Under Section 110 and Part D of 

the CAA 

i. Section 110 General SIP Requirements 

Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA 

contains the general requirements for a 

SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the 

implementation plan submitted by a 

state must have been adopted by the 

state after reasonable public notice and 

hearing, and, among other things, must: 

include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CAA; provide 

for establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems 

and procedures necessary to monitor 

ambient air quality; provide for 

implementation of a source permit 

program to regulate the modification 

and construction of any stationary 

source within the areas covered by the 

plan; include provisions for the 

implementation of part C, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part 

D, New Source Review (NSR) permit 

programs; include criteria for stationary 

source emission control measures, 

monitoring and reporting; include 

provisions for air quality modeling; and 

provide for public and local agency 

participation in planning and emission 

control rule development. 

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

requires that SIPs contain measures to 

prevent sources in a state from 

significantly contributing to air quality 

problems in another state. EPA believes 

that the requirements linked with a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation are the relevant measures to 

evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. The transport SIP submittal 

requirements, where applicable, 

continue to apply to a state regardless of 

the designation of any one particular 

area in the state. Thus, we believe that 

these requirements should not be 

construed to be applicable requirements 

for purposes of redesignation. 

Further, we believe that the other 

section 110 elements described above 

that are not connected with 

nonattainment plan submissions and 

not linked with an area’s attainment 

status are also not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. A state remains subject to 

these requirements after an area is 

redesignated to attainment. We 

conclude that only the section 110 and 

part D requirements that are linked with 

a particular area’s designation are the 

relevant measures which we may 

consider in evaluating a redesignation 

request. This approach is consistent 

with EPA’s existing policy on 

applicability of conformity and 

oxygenated fuels requirements for 

redesignation purposes, as well as with 

section 184 ozone transport 

requirements. See Reading, 

Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176, 

October 10, 1996) and (62 FR 24826, 

May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, 

Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, 

May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 

1995). See also the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour 

ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 

19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone 

redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 

2001). 

We have reviewed the Ohio SIP and 

have concluded that it meets the general 

SIP requirements under section 110 of 

the CAA to the extent they are 

applicable for purposes of this 

redesignation. EPA has previously 

approved provisions of Ohio’s SIP 

addressing section 110 requirements, 

including provisions addressing 

particulate matter, at 40 CFR 52.1870, 

respectively). On December 5, 2007, and 

September 4, 2009, Ohio made 

submittals addressing ‘‘infrastructure 

SIP’’ elements required under CAA 

section 110(a)(2). EPA proposed 

approval of the December 5, 2007, 

submittal on April 28, 2011, at 76 FR 

23757, and published final approval on 

July 14, 2011, at 76 FR 41075. The 

requirements of section 110(a)(2), 

however, are statewide requirements 

that are not linked to the PM2.5

nonattainment status of the CantonMassillon area. Therefore, EPA believes 

that these SIP elements are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

review of the state’s PM2.5 redesignation 

request. 

ii. Part D Requirements 

EPA is proposing to determine that, 

upon approval of the base year 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48091 

emissions inventories discussed in 

section V.6. of this rulemaking, the Ohio 

SIP will meet the SIP requirements for 

the Canton-Massillon area applicable for 

purposes of redesignation under part D 

of the CAA. 

Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 

172–176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic 

nonattainment requirements applicable 

to all nonattainment areas. 

(1). Subpart 1 

(a). Section 172 Requirements. 

For purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation request, the applicable 

section 172 SIP requirements for the 

Canton-Massillon area are contained in 

section 172(c)(1)–(9). A thorough 

discussion of the requirements 

contained in section 172 can be found 

in the General Preamble for 

Implementation of title I (57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992). 

Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans 

for all nonattainment areas to provide 

for the implementation of all 

Reasonably Achievable Control 

Measures (RACM) as expeditiously as 

practicable and to provide for 

attainment of the primary NAAQS. EPA 

interprets this requirement to impose a 

duty on all nonattainment areas to 

consider all available control measures 

and to adopt and implement such 

measures as are reasonably available for 

implementation in each area as 

components of the area’s attainment 

demonstration. Because attainment has 

been reached, no additional measures 

are needed to provide for attainment, 

and section 172(c)(1) requirements are 

no longer considered to be applicable as 

long as the area continues to attain the 

standard until redesignation. (40 CFR 

51.1004(c).) 

The Reasonable Further Progress 

(RFP) requirement under section 

172(c)(2) is defined as progress that 

must be made toward attainment. This 

requirement is not relevant for purposes 

of redesignation because the CantonMassillon area has monitored 

attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. (General 

Preamble, 57 FR 13564). See also 40 

CFR 51.918. In addition, because the 

Canton-Massillon area has attained the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS and is no longer subject to an 

RFP requirement, the requirement to 

submit the section 172(c)(9) contingency 

measures is not applicable for purposes 

of redesignation. Id. 

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission 

and approval of a comprehensive, 

accurate and current inventory of actual 

emissions. Ohio submitted a 2005 

(nonattainment year) and 2008 

(attainment year) emissions inventories 

for SO2, NOX, and directly emitted PM2.5

as part of their redesignation request, 

and Ohio supplemented these 

inventories with emission inventories 

for VOC and ammonia on April 29, 

2013. As discussed below in section 

V.6, EPA is approving both the 2005 and 

2008 base year inventory as meeting the 

section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory 

requirement for the Canton-Massillon 

area. 

Section 172(c)(4) requires the 

identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources in an area, 

and section 172(c)(5) requires source 

permits for the construction and 

operation of new and modified major 

stationary sources anywhere in the 

nonattainment area. EPA approved 

Ohio’s current NSR program on January 

10, 2003 (68 FR 1366). Nonetheless, 

since PSD requirements will apply after 

redesignation, the area need not have a 

fully-approved NSR program for 

purposes of this redesignation, provided 

that the area demonstrates maintenance 

of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ’’Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ Ohio has 

demonstrated that the Canton-Massillon 

area will be able to maintain the 

standard without part D NSR in effect; 

therefore, the state need not have a fully 

approved part D NSR program prior to 

approval of the redesignation request. 

The state’s PSD program will become 

effective in the Canton-Massillon area 

upon redesignation to attainment. See 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). 

Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to 

contain control measures necessary to 

provide for attainment of the standard. 

Because attainment has been reached, 

no additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment. 

Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to 

meet the applicable provisions of 

section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we 

believe the Ohio’s SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

(b) Section 176(c)(4)(D) Conformity 

SIP Requirements. 

The requirement to determine 

conformity applies to transportation 

plans, programs and projects developed, 

funded or approved under title 23 of the 

U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act 

(transportation conformity), as well as to 

all other Federally-supported or funded 

projects (general conformity). 

Section 176(c) of the CAA was 

amended by provisions contained in the 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU), which was 

signed into law on August 10, 2005 

(Pub. L. 109–59). Among the changes 

Congress made to this section of the 

CAA were streamlined requirements for 

state transportation conformity SIPs. 

State transportation conformity 

regulations must be consistent with 

Federal conformity regulations and 

address three specific requirements 

related to consultation, enforcement and 

enforceability. EPA believes that it is 

reasonable to interpret the 

transportation conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request under section 107(d) for two 

reasons. 

First, the requirement to submit SIP 

revisions to comply with the 

transportation conformity provisions of 

the CAA continues to apply to areas 

after redesignation to attainment since 

such areas would be subject to a section 

175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA’s 

Federal conformity rules require the 

performance of conformity analyses in 

the absence of Federally-approved state 

rules. Therefore, because areas are 

subject to the transportation conformity 

requirements regardless of whether they 

are redesignated to attainment and, 

because they must implement 

conformity under Federal rules if state 

rules are not yet approved, EPA believes 

it is reasonable to view these 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating a redesignation 

request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 

(6th Cir. 2001), upholding this 

interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 

62749–62750 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, 

Florida). Ohio has an approved 

transportation conformity SIP (72 FR 

20945). Ohio is in the process of 

updating its approved transportation 

conformity SIP, and EPA will review its 

provisions when they are submitted. 

(2). Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. 

Circuit Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation under Subpart 4 

(a). Background 

As discussed above, on January 4, 

2013, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48092 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1Applicable 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. 

remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air 

Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72 

FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

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

16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court found that 

EPA erred in implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general 

implementation provisions of subpart 1 

of part D of title I of the CAA, rather 

than the particulate-matter-specific 

provisions of subpart 4 of part D of title 

I. Although the Court’s ruling did not 

directly address the 2006 PM2.5

standard, EPA is taking into account the 

Court’s position on subpart 4 and the 

1997 PM2.5 standard in evaluating 

redesignations for the 2006 standard. 

(b). Proposal on This Issue 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision 

does not prevent EPA from 

redesignating the Canton-Massillon area 

to attainment. Even in light of the 

Court’s decision, redesignation for this 

area is appropriate under the CAA and 

EPA’s longstanding interpretations of 

the CAA’s provisions regarding 

redesignation. EPA first explains its 

longstanding interpretation that 

requirements that are imposed, or that 

become due, after a complete 

redesignation request is submitted for 

an area that is attaining the standard are 

not applicable for purposes of 

evaluating a redesignation request. 

Second, EPA then shows that, even if 

EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements 

to the Canton-Massillon redesignation 

request and disregards the provisions of 

its 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule 

recently remanded by the Court, the 

state’s request for redesignation of this 

area still qualifies for approval. EPA’s 

discussion takes into account the effect 

of the Court’s ruling on the area’s 

maintenance plan, which EPA views as 

approvable when subpart 4 

requirements are considered. 

(i). Applicable Requirements for 

Purposes of Evaluating the 

Redesignation Request 

With respect to the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, ruling rejected EPA’s 

reasons for implementing the PM2.5

NAAQS solely in accordance with the 

provisions of subpart 1, and remanded 

that matter to EPA, so that it could 

address implementation of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of part D 

of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For 

the purposes of evaluating Ohio’s 

redesignation request for the area, to the 

extent that implementation under 

subpart 4 would impose additional 

requirements for areas designated 

nonattainment, EPA believes that those 

requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not 

required to consider subpart 4 

requirements with respect to the 

Canton-Massillon redesignation. Under 

its longstanding interpretation of the 

CAA, EPA has interpreted section 

107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold 

matter, that the part D provisions which 

are ‘‘applicable’’ and which must be 

approved in order for EPA to 

redesignate an area include only those 

which came due prior to a state’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992 (Calcagni memorandum). See also 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) NAAQS on or after 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993 (Shapiro 

memorandum); Final Redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 

12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final 

Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 

FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003); 

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

(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation and expressly rejecting 

Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of 

‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is 

‘‘whatever should have been in the plan 

at the time of attainment rather than 

whatever actually was in the plan and 

already implemented or due at the time 

of attainment’’).1 In this case, at the time 

that Ohio submitted its redesignation 

request, requirements under subpart 4 

were not due, [and indeed, were not yet 

known to apply.] 

EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the Canton-Massillon 

redesignation, the subpart 4 

requirements were not due at the time 

the state submitted the redesignation 

request is in keeping with the EPA’s 

interpretation of subpart 2 requirements 

for subpart 1 ozone areas redesignated 

subsequent to the D.C. Circuit’s decision 

in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. 

v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

In South Coast, the Court found that 

EPA was not permitted to implement 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely 

under subpart 1, and held that EPA was 

required under the statute to implement 

the standard under the ozone-specific 

requirements of subpart 2 as well. 

Subsequent to the South Coast decision, 

in evaluating and acting upon 

redesignation requests for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard that were 

submitted to EPA for areas under 

subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA that 

‘‘applicable requirements’’, for purposes 

of evaluating a redesignation, are those 

that had been due at the time the 

redesignation request was submitted. 

See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of 

Manitowoc County and Door County 

Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 

22050, April 27, 2010). In those actions, 

EPA therefore did not consider subpart 

2 requirements to be ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of evaluating whether the 

area should be redesignated under 

section 107(d)(3)(E). 

EPA’s interpretation derives from the 

provisions of CAA Section 107(d)(3). 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an 

area to be redesignated, a state must 

meet ‘‘all requirements ‘applicable’ to 

the area under section 110 and part D’’. 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that the 

EPA must have fully approved the 

‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the area seeking 

redesignation. These two sections read 

together support EPA’s interpretation of 

‘‘applicable’’ as only those requirements 

that came due prior to submission of a 

complete redesignation request. First, 

holding states to an ongoing obligation 

to adopt new CAA requirements that 

arose after the state submitted its 

redesignation request, in order to be 

redesignated, would make it 

problematic or impossible for EPA to act 

on redesignation requests in accordance 

with the 18-month deadline Congress 

set for EPA action in section 

107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ were interpreted to be a 

continuing flow of requirements with no 

reasonable limitation, states, after 

submitting a redesignation request, 

would be forced continuously to make 

additional SIP submissions that in turn 

would require EPA to undertake further 

notice-and-comment rulemaking actions 

to act on those submissions. This would 

create a regime of unceasing rulemaking 

that would delay action on the 

redesignation request beyond the 18- 

month timeframe provided by the CAA 

for this purpose. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48093 

2Sierra 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). 

3PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 

micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

4The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 

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

redesignation is discussed below. 

Second, a fundamental premise for 

redesignating a nonattainment area to 

attainment is that the area has attained 

the relevant NAAQS due to emission 

reductions from existing controls. Thus, 

an area for which a redesignation 

request has been submitted would have 

already attained the NAAQS as a result 

of satisfying statutory requirements that 

came due prior to the submission of the 

request. Absent a showing that 

unadopted and unimplemented 

requirements are necessary for future 

maintenance, it is reasonable to view 

the requirements applicable for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request as including only those SIP 

requirements that have already come 

due. These are the requirements that led 

to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, 

for redesignation approval, that a state 

also satisfy additional SIP requirements 

coming due after the state submits its 

complete redesignation request, and 

while EPA is reviewing it, would 

compel the state to do more than is 

necessary to attain the NAAQS, without 

a showing that the additional 

requirements are necessary for 

maintenance. 

In the context of this redesignation, 

the timing and nature of the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. 

EPA compound the consequences of 

imposing requirements that come due 

after the redesignation request is 

submitted. The state submitted its 

redesignation request on July 5, 2011, 

but the Court did not issue its decision 

remanding EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule concerning the 

applicability of the provisions of 

subpart 4 until January 2013. 

To require the state’s fully-completed 

and pending redesignation request to 

comply now with requirements of 

subpart 4 that the Court announced only 

in January, 2013, would be to give 

retroactive effect to such requirements 

when the state had no notice that it was 

required to meet them. The D.C. Circuit 

recognized the inequity of this type of 

retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. 

Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),2

where it upheld the District Court’s 

ruling refusing to make retroactive 

EPA’s determination that the St. Louis 

area did not meet its attainment 

deadline. In that case, petitioners urged 

the Court to make EPA’s nonattainment 

determination effective as of the date 

that the statute required, rather than the 

later date on which EPA actually made 

the determination. The Court rejected 

this view, stating that applying it 

‘‘would likely impose large costs on 

states, which would face fines and suits 

for not implementing air pollution 

prevention plans . . . even though they 

were not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 

68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable 

to penalize the state of Ohio by rejecting 

its redesignation request for an area that 

is already attaining the 1997 PM2.5

standard and that met all applicable 

requirements known to be in effect at 

the time of the request. For EPA now to 

reject the redesignation request solely 

because the state did not expressly 

address subpart 4 requirements of 

which it had no notice, would inflict the 

same unfairness condemned by the 

Court in Sierra Club v. Whitman. 

(ii). Subpart 4 Requirements and Ohio 

Redesignation Request 

Even if EPA were to take the view that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision 

requires that, in the context of pending 

redesignations, subpart 4 requirements 

were due and in effect at the time the 

state submitted its redesignation 

request, EPA proposes to determine that 

the Canton-Massillon area still qualifies 

for redesignation to attainment. As 

explained below, EPA believes that the 

redesignation request for the CantonMassillon area, though not expressed in 

terms of subpart 4 requirements, 

substantively meets the requirements of 

that subpart for purposes of 

redesignating the area to attainment. 

With respect to evaluating the 

relevant substantive requirements of 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the Canton-Massillon area, EPA notes 

that subpart 4 incorporates components 

of subpart 1 of part D, which contains 

general air quality planning 

requirements for areas designated as 

nonattainment. See Section 172(c). 

Subpart 4 itself contains specific 

planning and scheduling requirements 

for PM103 nonattainment areas, and 

under the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same 

statutory requirements also apply for 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has 

longstanding general guidance that 

interprets the 1990 amendments to the 

CAA, making recommendations to states 

for meeting the statutory requirements 

for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See, 

‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clear Air Act Amendments 

of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) 

(the ‘‘General Preamble’’). In the General 

Preamble, EPA discussed the 

relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 

SIP requirements, and pointed out that 

subpart 1 requirements were to an 

extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally 

related to, the more specific PM–10 

requirements.’’ 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 

1992). The subpart 1 requirements 

include, among other things, provisions 

for attainment demonstrations, RACM, 

RFP, emissions inventories, and 

contingency measures. 

For the purposes of this redesignation, 

in order to identify any additional 

requirements which would apply under 

subpart 4, we are considering the 

Canton-Massillon area to be a 

‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

Under section 188 of the CAA, all areas 

designated nonattainment areas under 

subpart 4 would initially be classified 

by operation of law as ‘‘moderate’’ 

nonattainment areas, and would remain 

moderate nonattainment areas unless 

and until EPA reclassifies the area as a 

‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area. 

Accordingly, EPA believes that it is 

appropriate to limit the evaluation of 

the potential impact of subpart 4 

requirements to those that would be 

applicable to moderate nonattainment 

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

4 apply to moderate nonattainment 

areas and include the following: (1) An 

approved permit program for 

construction of new and modified major 

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

(2) an attainment demonstration (section 

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

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

quantitative milestones demonstrating 

RFP toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date (section 

189(c)). 

The permit requirements of subpart 4, 

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

refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit 

provisions requirements of sections 172 

and 173 to PM10, without adding to 

them. Consequently, EPA believes that 

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

impose for redesignation purposes any 

additional requirements for moderate 

areas beyond those contained in subpart 

1.4 In any event, in the context of 

redesignation, EPA has long relied on 

the interpretation that a fully approved 

nonattainment new source review 

program is not considered an applicable 

requirement for redesignation, provided 

the area can maintain the standard with 

a PSD program after redesignation. A 

detailed rationale for this view is 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48094 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

5 I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, 

milestone requirements, contingency measures. 

6As 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. 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ See also 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). 

With respect to the specific 

attainment planning requirements under 

subpart 4,5 when EPA evaluates a 

redesignation request under either 

subpart 1 and/or 4, any area that is 

attaining the PM2.5 standard is viewed 

as having satisfied the attainment 

planning requirements for these 

subparts. For redesignations, EPA has 

for many years interpreted 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 for the Interpretation 

of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 

1990’’; (57 FR 13498, 13564, April 16, 

1992). 

The General Preamble also explained 

that 

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

directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by 

the applicable date. These requirements no 

longer apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for redesignation. 

Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance 

plans . . . provides specific requirements for 

contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas. 

Id. 

EPA similarly stated in its 1992 

Calcagni memorandum that, ‘‘The 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress and other measures needed for 

attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning for areas not attaining the 

standard.’’ 

It is evident that even if we were to 

consider the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that 

attainment-related requirements specific 

to subpart 4 should be imposed 

retroactively 6 and thus are now past 

due, those requirements do not apply to 

an area that is attaining the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 standard, for the purpose of 

evaluating a pending request to 

redesignate the area to attainment. EPA 

has consistently enunciated this 

interpretation of applicable 

requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) 

since the General Preamble was 

published more than twenty years ago. 

Courts have recognized the scope of 

EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ in the redesignation 

context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

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

Moreover, even outside the context of 

redesignations, EPA has viewed the 

obligations to submit attainment-related 

SIP planning requirements of subpart 4 

as inapplicable for areas that EPA 

determines are attaining the standard. 

EPA’s prior ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ 

rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also 

governed by the requirements of subpart 

4, explain EPA’s reasoning. They 

describe the effects of a determination of 

attainment on the attainment-related SIP 

planning requirements of subpart 4. See 

‘‘Determination of Attainment for Coso 

Junction Nonattainment Area,’’ (75 FR 

27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso 

Junction proposed PM10 redesignation, 

(75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010); 

Proposed and Final Determinations of 

Attainment for San Joaquin 

Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 

40954–55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 

63641, 63643–47 October 30, 2006). In 

short, EPA in this context has also long 

concluded that to require states to meet 

superfluous SIP planning requirements 

is not necessary and not required by the 

CAA, so long as those areas continue to 

attain the relevant NAAQS. 

Elsewhere in this notice, EPA 

proposes to determine that the area has 

attained the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

standards. Under its longstanding 

interpretation, EPA is proposing to 

determine here that the area meets the 

attainment-related plan requirements of 

subparts 1 and 4. 

Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude 

that the requirements to submit an 

attainment demonstration under 

189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination 

under section 172(c)1 and section 

189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration under 

189(c)(1), and contingency measure 

requirements under section 172(c)(9) are 

satisfied for purposes of evaluating the 

redesignation request. 

(iii). Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

The D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA 

remanded to EPA the two rules at issue 

in the case with instructions to EPA to 

re-promulgate them consistent with the 

requirements of subpart 4. EPA in this 

section addresses the Court’s opinion 

with respect to PM2.5 precursors. While 

past implementation of subpart 4 for 

PM10 has allowed for control of PM10

precursors such as NOX from major 

stationary, mobile, and area sources in 

order to attain the standard as 

expeditiously as practicable, CAA 

section 189(e) specifically provides that 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10 shall 

also apply to PM10 precursors from 

those sources, except where EPA 

determines that major stationary sources 

of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels which 

exceed the standard in the area.’’ 

EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 implementation 

rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit, 

contained rebuttable presumptions 

concerning certain PM2.5 precursors 

applicable to attainment plans and 

control measures related to those plans. 

Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA 

provided, among other things, that a 

state was ‘‘not required to address VOC 

[and ammonia] as . . . PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursor[s] and to evaluate 

sources of VOC [and ammonia] 

emissions in the state for control 

measures.’’ EPA intended these to be 

rebuttable presumptions. EPA 

established these presumptions at the 

time because of uncertainties regarding 

the emission inventories for these 

pollutants and the effectiveness of 

specific control measures in various 

regions of the country in reducing PM2.5

concentrations. EPA also left open the 

possibility for such regulation of VOC 

and ammonia in specific areas where 

that was necessary. 

The Court in its January 4, 2013, 

decision made reference to both section 

189(e) and 40 CFR 51. 1002, and stated 

that, ‘‘In light of our disposition, we 

need not address the petitioners’ 

challenge to the presumptions in [40 

CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic 

compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5

precursors, as subpart 4 expressly 

governs precursor presumptions.’’ 

NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10. 

Elsewhere in the Court’s opinion, 

however, the Court observed: 

Ammonia is a precursor to fine particulate 

matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5

and PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area 

governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 

presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7513a(e) [section 189(e)]. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48095 

7Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for 

purposes of demonstrating attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable, a state is required to 

evaluate all economically and technologically 

feasible control measures for direct PM emissions 

and precursor emissions, and adopt those measures 

that are deemed reasonably available. 

8The Canton-Massillon area has reduced VOC 

emissions through the implementation of various 

SIP approved VOC control programs and various 

on-road and nonroad motor vehicle control 

programs. 

9See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans for California—San Joaquin 

Valley PM–10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area 

Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual 

PM–10 Standards,’’ 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) 

(approving a PM10 attainment plan that impose 

controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and did 

not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or ammonia 

emissions). 

10See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA 

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

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

EPA believes that its proposed 

redesignation of the Canton-Massillon 

area is consistent with the Court’s 

decision on this aspect of subpart 4. 

First, while the Court, citing section 

189(e), stated that ‘‘for a PM10 area 

governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 

‘presumptively regulated,’’’ the Court 

expressly declined to decide the specific 

challenge to EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule provisions 

regarding ammonia and VOC as 

precursors. The Court had no occasion 

to reach whether and how it was 

substantively necessary to regulate any 

specific precursor in a particular PM2.5

nonattainment area, and did not address 

what might be necessary for purposes of 

acting upon a redesignation request. 

However, even if EPA takes the view 

that the requirements of subpart 4 were 

deemed applicable at the time the state 

submitted the redesignation request, 

and disregards the implementation 

rule’s rebuttable presumptions regarding 

ammonia and VOC as PM2.5 precursors, 

(and any similar provisions reflected in 

the guidance for the 2006 PM2.5

standard) the regulatory consequence 

would be to consider the need for 

regulation of all precursors from any 

sources in the area to demonstrate 

attainment and to apply the section 

189(e) provisions to major stationary 

sources of precursors. In the case of 

Canton-Massillon, EPA believes that 

doing so is consistent with proposing 

redesignation of the area for the 1997 

PM2.5 standard. The Canton-Massillon 

area has attained both standards without 

any specific additional controls of VOC 

and ammonia emissions from any 

sources in the area. 

Precursors in subpart 4 are 

specifically regulated under the 

provisions of section 189(e), which 

requires, with important exceptions, 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of PM10 precursors.7

Under subpart 1 and EPA’s prior 

implementation rule, all major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors 

were subject to regulation, with the 

exception of ammonia and VOC. Thus 

we must address here whether 

additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC from major stationary sources are 

required under section 189(e) of subpart 

4 in order to redesignate the area for the 

1997 PM2.5 standard. As explained 

below, we do not believe that any 

additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC are required in the context of this 

redesignation. 

In the General Preamble, EPA 

discusses its approach to implementing 

section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538–13542. 

With regard to precursor regulation 

under section 189(e), the General 

Preamble explicitly stated that control 

of VOCs under other Act requirements 

may suffice to relieve a state from the 

need to adopt precursor controls under 

section 189(e) (57 FR 13542). EPA in 

this proposal proposes to determine that 

the SIP has met the provisions of section 

189(e) with respect to ammonia and 

VOCs as precursors. This proposed 

determination is based on our findings 

that (1) the Canton-Massillon area 

contains no major stationary sources of 

ammonia, and (2) existing major 

stationary sources of VOC are 

adequately controlled under other 

provisions of the CAA regulating the 

ozone NAAQS.8 In the alternative, EPA 

proposes to determine that, under the 

express exception provisions of section 

189(e), and in the context of the 

redesignation of the area, which is 

attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard, at present ammonia and VOC 

precursors from major stationary 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to levels exceeding the 1997 PM2.5

standard in the Canton-Massillon area. 

See 57 FR 13539–42. 

EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule provisions in 40 

CFR 51.1002 were not directed at 

evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the 

context of redesignation, but at SIP 

plans and control measures required to 

bring a nonattainment area into 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

By contrast, redesignation to attainment 

primarily requires the area to have 

already attained due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions, and to 

demonstrate that controls in place can 

continue to maintain the standard. 

Thus, even if we regard the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, decision as calling for 

‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of ammonia 

and VOC for PM2.5 under the attainment 

planning provisions of subpart 4, those 

provisions in and of themselves do not 

require additional controls of these 

precursors for an area that already 

qualifies for redesignation. Nor does 

EPA believe that requiring Ohio to 

address precursors differently than they 

have already would result in a 

substantively different outcome. 

Although, as EPA has emphasized, its 

consideration here of precursor 

requirements under subpart 4 is in the 

context of a redesignation to attainment, 

EPA’s existing interpretation of subpart 

4 requirements with respect to 

precursors in attainment plans for PM10

contemplates that states may develop 

attainment plans that regulate only 

those precursors that are necessary for 

purposes of attainment in the area in 

question, i.e., states may determine that 

only certain precursors need be 

regulated for attainment and control 

purposes.9 Courts have upheld this 

approach to the requirements of subpart 

4 for PM10.10 EPA believes that 

application of this approach to PM2.5

precursors under subpart 4 is 

reasonable. Because the CantonMassillon area has already attained the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with its 

current approach to regulation of PM2.5

precursors, EPA believes that it is 

reasonable to conclude in the context of 

this redesignation that there is no need 

to revisit the attainment control strategy 

with respect to the treatment of 

precursors. Even if the Court’s decision 

is construed to impose an obligation, in 

evaluating this redesignation request, to 

consider additional precursors under 

subpart 4, it would not affect EPA’s 

approval here of Ohio’s request for 

redesignation of the Canton-Massillon 

area. In the context of a redesignation, 

the area has shown that it has attained 

both standards. Moreover, the state has 

shown and EPA is proposing to 

determine that attainment in this area is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emissions reductions on all precursors 

necessary to provide for continued 

attainment. It follows logically that no 

further control of additional precursors 

is necessary. Accordingly, EPA does not 

view the January 4, 2013, decision of the 

Court as precluding redesignation of the 

Canton-Massillon area to attainment for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. 

In sum, even if Ohio were required to 

address precursors for the CantonMassillon area under subpart 4 rather 

than under subpart 1, as interpreted in 

EPA’s remanded PM2.5 implementation 

rule, EPA would still conclude that the 

area had met all applicable 

requirements for purposes of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48096 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

redesignation in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v). 

b. The Canton-Massillon Area Has a 

Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under 

Section 110(k) of the CAA 

Upon final approval of Ohio’s 

comprehensive emissions inventories, 

EPA will have fully approved the Ohio 

SIP for the Canton-Massillon area under 

section 110(k) of the CAA for all 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation to attainment for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard. EPA may rely on prior SIP 

approvals in approving a redesignation 

request (See page 3 of the Calcagni 

Memorandum; Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 

Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–990 (6th 

Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 

(6th Cir. 2001)), plus any additional 

measures it may approve in conjunction 

with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 

25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the 

passage of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has 

adopted and submitted, and EPA has 

fully approved, provisions addressing 

various required SIP elements under 

particulate matter standards. In this 

action, as discussed in section V.6 EPA 

is proposing to approve Ohio’s base year 

emissions inventories for the CantonMassillon area as meeting the 

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

CAA for the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard. 

c. Nonattainment Requirements 

Under section 172, states with 

nonattainment areas must submit plans 

providing for timely attainment and 

meeting a variety of other requirements. 

On July 16, 2008, Ohio submitted a 

state-wide attainment demonstration for 

PM2.5, including the Canton-Massillon 

area. However, EPA’s determination that 

the area attained the 1997 PM2.5 annual 

and 2006 24-hour standards (76 FR 

56641; 77 FR 28264, respectively) 

suspended the requirement to submit 

certain planning SIPs related to 

attainment, including attainment 

demonstration requirements, the 

Reasonably Achievable Control 

Technology (RACT)-RACM requirement 

of section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, the RFP 

and attainment demonstration 

requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and 

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

requirement for contingency measures 

of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA). 

As a result, the only remaining 

requirement under section 172 to be 

considered is the emissions inventory 

required under section 172(c)(3). As 

discussed in section V.6, EPA is 

proposing to approve the inventory that 

Ohio submitted as part of its 

maintenance plan as satisfying this 

requirement. 

No SIP provisions applicable for 

redesignation of the Canton-Massillon 

area are currently disapproved, 

conditionally approved or partially 

approved. If EPA approves Ohio’s 

Canton-Massillon area PM2.5 emissions 

inventories as proposed, Ohio will have 

a fully approved SIP for all 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is 

Due to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions Resulting From 

Implementation of the SIP and 

Applicable Federal Air Pollution 

Control Regulations and Other 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

(Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)) 

EPA believes that Ohio has 

demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvement in the CantonMassillon area is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

SIP, Federal measures and other stateadopted measures. 

In making this demonstration, Ohio 

has calculated the change in emissions 

between 2005, one of the years used to 

designate the Canton-Massillon area as 

nonattainment, and 2008, one of the 

years the Canton-Massillon area 

monitored attainment. The reduction in 

emissions and the corresponding 

improvement in air quality over this 

time period can be attributed to a 

number of regulatory control measures 

that the Canton-Massillon area and 

contributing areas have implemented in 

recent years. 

a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls 

Implemented 

The following is a discussion of 

permanent and enforceable measures 

that have been implemented in the area: 

i. Federal Emission Control Measures 

Reductions in fine particle precursor 

emissions have occurred statewide and 

in upwind areas as a result of Federal 

emission control measures, with 

additional emission reductions expected 

to occur in the future. Federal emission 

control measures include the following: 

Tier 2 Emission Standards for 

Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards. 

These emission control requirements 

result in lower NOX and SO2 emissions 

from new cars and light duty trucks, 

including sport utility vehicles. The 

Federal rules were phased in between 

2004 and 2009. The EPA has estimated 

that, by the end of the phase-in period, 

new vehicles will emit the following 

percentages less NOX: Passenger cars 

(light duty vehicles)—77%; light duty 

trucks, minivans, and sports utility 

vehicles—86%; and, larger sports utility 

vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks—69% 

to 95%. EPA expects fleet wide average 

emissions to come to decline by similar 

percentages as new vehicles replace 

older vehicles. The Tier 2 standards also 

reduced the sulfur content of gasoline to 

30 parts per million (ppm) beginning in 

January 2006. Most gasoline sold in 

Ohio prior to January 2006 had a sulfur 

content of about 500 ppm. 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. EPA 

issued this rule in July 2000. This rule 

includes standards limiting the sulfur 

content of diesel fuel, which went into 

effect in 2004. A second phase took 

effect in 2007 which reduced fine 

particle emissions from heavy-duty 

highway engines and further reduced 

the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 

15 ppm. The total program is estimated 

to achieve a 90% reduction in direct 

PM2.5 emissions and a 95% reduction in 

NOX emissions for these new engines 

using low sulfur diesel, compared to 

existing engines using higher sulfur 

content diesel. The reduction in fuel 

sulfur content also yielded an 

immediate reduction in sulfate particle 

emissions from all diesel vehicles. 

Nonroad Diesel Rule. In May 2004, 

EPA promulgated a new rule for large 

nonroad diesel engines, such as those 

used construction, agriculture and 

mining equipment, to be phased in 

between 2008 and 2014. The rule also 

reduces the sulfur content in nonroad 

diesel fuel by over 99%. Prior to 2006, 

nonroad diesel fuel averaged 

approximately 3,400 ppm sulfur. This 

rule limited nonroad diesel sulfur 

content to 500 ppm by 2006, with a 

further reduction to 15 ppm by 2010. 

The combined engine and fuel rules will 

reduce NOX and PM emissions from 

large nonroad diesel engines by over 

90%, compared to current nonroad 

engines using higher sulfur content 

diesel. It is estimated that compliance 

with this rule will cut NOX emissions 

from nonroad diesel engines by up to 

90%. This rule achieved some emission 

reductions by 2008 and was fully 

implemented by 2010. The reduction in 

fuel sulfur content also yielded an 

immediate reduction in sulfate particle 

emissions from all diesel vehicles. 

Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engine 

and Recreational Engine Standards. In 

November 2002 EPA promulgated 

emission standards for groups of 

previously unregulated nonroad 

engines. These engines include large 

spark-ignition engines such as those 

used in forklifts and airport groundservice equipment; recreational vehicles 

using spark-ignition engines such as offVerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48097 

11Periodic emission inventories are derived by 

states every three years and reported to the EPA. 

These periodic emission inventories are required by 

the Federal Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule, 

codified at 40 CFR Subpart A. EPA revised these 

and other emission reporting requirements in a final 

rule published on December 17, 2008, at 73 FR 

76539. 

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 in 2007. Recreational vehicle 

emission standards are being phased in 

from 2006 through 2012. Marine Diesel 

engine standards were phased in from 

2006 through 2009. With full 

implementation of the nonroad sparkignition engine and recreational engine 

standards, an 80% reduction in NOX

expected by 2020. Some of these 

emission reductions occurred by the 

2008–2010 period used to demonstrate 

attainment, and additional emission 

reductions will occur during the 

maintenance period. 

ii. Control Measures in Contributing 

Areas 

NOX SIP Call. On October 27, 1998 

(63 FR 57356), EPA issued a NOX SIP 

Call requiring the District of Columbia 

and 22 states to reduce emissions of 

NOX. Affected states were required to 

comply with Phase I of the SIP Call 

beginning in 2004, and with Phase II 

beginning in 2007. Emission reductions 

resulting from regulations developed in 

response to the NOX SIP Call are 

permanent and enforceable. 

CAIR. The Canton-Massillon area has 

demonstrated that attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be 

maintained with or without the 

implementation of CAIR or CSAPR. The 

Canton-Massillon area has no local 

electric generating units (EGUs) that 

would be impacted by CAIR or CSAPR, 

and in fact, the area’s emissions are 

dominated by mobile sources (Table 2). 

Mobile sources in the area comprise 

85% of the NOX emissions, 38% of the 

SO2 emission, and 46% of the PM2.5

emissions from the base-year inventory. 

In addition, regional emissions will not 

affect the attainment or maintenance of 

the Canton-Massillon area. Modeling 

conducted by EPA during the CSAPR 

rulemaking process demonstrates that 

the counties in the Canton-Massillon 

PM2.5 nonattainment area will have 

concentrations below the 1997 annual 

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards in 

both 2012 and 2014 without taking into 

account emissions reductions from 

CAIR or CSAPR. See ‘‘Air Quality 

Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 

Document’’, App. B. This modeling is 

available in the docket for this proposed 

redesignation action. 

Moreover, in its August 2012 

decision, the Court also ordered EPA to 

continue implementing CAIR. See EME 

Homer City Generation LP v. EPA, 696 

F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In sum, neither 

the current status of CAIR nor the 

current status of CSAPR affects any of 

the criteria for proposed approval of this 

redesignation request for the CantonMassillon area. 

iii. Consent Decrees 

On December 31, 2012, the Marathon 

petroleum refinery in Canton was 

required by a Federal consent decree to 

shut down an open waste gas flare, 

resulting in reductions of VOCs, SO2

and direct PM. The Canton refinery is 

also required under this consent decree 

to meet specific limits on their capped 

gas flare that must be incorporated into 

the permanent construction permit. 

These emission reductions will add to 

continued reductions for other sources 

in the area throughout the maintenance 

period. In a 2011 state consent decree, 

Akron Iron & Metal, LLC, in Canton, 

added baghouse controls resulting in 

reductions of direct PM in the Canton 

area. 

b. Emission Reductions 

Ohio developed emissions inventories 

for NOX, direct PM2.5 and SO2 for 2005, 

one of the years used to designate the 

area as nonattainment, and 2008, one of 

the years the Canton-Massillon area 

monitored attainment of the standard. 

Area source emissions the CantonMassillon area for 2005 were taken from 

periodic emissions inventories.11 These 

2005 area source emission estimates 

were extrapolated to 2008. Source 

growth factors were supplied by the 

Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium 

(LADCO). 

Nonroad mobile source emissions 

were extrapolated from nonroad mobile 

source emissions reported in EPA’s 

2005 National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI). Contractors were employed by 

LADCO to estimate emissions for 

commercial marine vessels and 

railroads. 

On-road mobile source emissions 

were calculated using EPA’s mobile 

source emission factor model, 

MOVES2010a, in conjunction with 

transportation model results developed 

by the Stark County Area Transportation 

Study (SCATS). 

All emissions estimates discussed 

below were documented in the 

submittal and appendices of Ohio’s 

redesignation request submittal from 

April 16, 2012, and their April 30, 2013, 

supplemental submittal. For these data 

and additional emissions inventory 

data, the reader is referred to EPA’s 

digital docket for this rule, http:// 

www.regulations.gov, which includes 

digital copies of Ohio’s submittal. 

Emissions data in tpy for the CantonMassillon area are shown in Tables 2 

and 3, below. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF 2005 EMISSIONS OF SO2, NOX, AND DIRECTLY EMITTED PM2.5 FOR THE CANTON-MASSILLON

AREA BY SOURCE TYPE

[tpy] 

SO2 NOX PM2.5

Point (EGU) ................................................................................................................................. 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Non-EGU ..................................................................................................................................... 553.14 1,129.41 380.10 

On-road ........................................................................................................................................ 191.33 14,004.65 433.47 

Nonroad ....................................................................................................................................... 261.01 2,801.96 231.64 

Area ............................................................................................................................................. 163.72 1,313.88 370.87 

MAR ............................................................................................................................................. 38.35 537.27 14.58 

Total Canton-Massillon ......................................................................................................... 1,207.55 19,787.17 1,430.66 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48098 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF PM2.5, NOX, AND SO2 EMISSIONS FROM A NONATTAINMENT YEAR (2005) AND EMISSIONS

FOR AN ATTAINMENT YEAR (2008) FOR THE CANTON-MASSILLON AREA

[tpy] 

2005 2008 Net change 

(2005–2008) 

PM2.5 ............................................................................................................................................ 1,430.66 1,257.11 ¥173.55 

NOX .............................................................................................................................................. 19,787.17 16,227.26 ¥3,559.91 

SO2 .............................................................................................................................................. 1,207.55 906.79 ¥300.76 

Table 3 shows that the CantonMassillon area shows a decrease in 

direct PM2.5 emissions by 173.55 tons, 

the area reduced NOX emissions by 

3,559.91tons and SO2 emissions by 

300.76 tons between 2005, a 

nonattainment year, and 2008, an 

attainment year. Ohio did not attribute 

attainment to any changes in VOC or 

ammonia emissions; instead to changes 

in SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 emissions. EPA 

agrees that emission reductions from 

sources of SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 brought 

the area into attainment, with most 

emission reductions occurring from 

Federal mobile source engine standards 

and fuel standards (Table 2 and 3). 

Based on the information summarized 

above, Ohio has adequately 

demonstrated that the improvement in 

air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions. 

4. Ohio Has a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175A of the CAA (Section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iv)) 

In conjunction with Ohio’s request to 

redesignate the Canton-Massillon 

nonattainment area to attainment status, 

Ohio has submitted a SIP revision to 

provide for maintenance of the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the area through 2025. 

a. What is required in a maintenance 

plan? 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the required elements of a maintenance 

plan for areas seeking redesignation 

from nonattainment to attainment. 

Under section 175A, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least ten 

years after EPA approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after redesignation, the state must 

submit a revised maintenance plan 

which demonstrates that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for ten years 

following the initial ten year 

maintenance period. To address the 

possibility of future NAAQS violations, 

the maintenance plan must contain 

contingency measures with a schedule 

for implementation as EPA deems 

necessary to assure prompt correction of 

any future annual PM2.5 violations. 

The Calcagni Memorandum provides 

additional guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan. The memorandum 

states that a maintenance plan should 

address the following items: the 

attainment emissions inventories, a 

maintenance demonstration showing 

maintenance for the ten years of the 

maintenance period, a commitment to 

maintain the existing monitoring 

network, factors and procedures to be 

used for verification of continued 

attainment of the NAAQS and a 

contingency plan to prevent or correct 

future violations of the NAAQS. 

b. Attainment Inventory 

Ohio developed emissions inventories 

for NOX, direct PM2.5 and SO2 for 2008, 

one of the years in the period during 

which the Canton-Massillon area 

monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard, as described previously. The 

attainment levels of emissions for the 

area are summarized in Tables 3, above. 

c. Demonstration of Maintenance 

Along with the redesignation request, 

Ohio submitted a revision to its PM2.5

SIP to include a maintenance plan for 

the Canton-Massillon area, as required 

by section 175A of the CAA. Section 

175A requires a state seeking 

redesignation to attainment to submit a 

SIP revision to provide for the 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the area 

‘‘for at least 10 years after the 

redesignation.’’ EPA has interpreted this 

as a showing of maintenance ‘‘for a 

period of ten years following 

redesignation.’’ Calcagni Memorandum, 

p.9. Where the emissions inventory 

method of showing maintenance is 

used, its purpose is to show that 

emissions during the maintenance 

period will not increase over the 

attainment year inventory. Calcagni 

Memorandum, pp. 9–10. 

Ohio’s submission uses emissions 

inventory projections for the years 2015 

and 2025 to demonstrate maintenance 

for the Canton-Massillon area. The 

projected emissions were estimated by 

Ohio, with assistance from LADCO and 

SCATS using the MOVES2010a model. 

The 2015 interim year emissions were 

projected using estimates based on the 

2009 and 2018 LADCO modeling 

inventory, using LADCO’s growth 

factors, for all sectors. The 2025 

maintenance year inventory is based on 

emissions estimates from the 2018 

LADCO modeling. Table 4 shows the 

2008 attainment base year emission 

estimates and the 2015 and 2025 

emission projections for NOX, direct 

PM2.5 and SO2 for the Canton-Massillon 

area that Ohio provided in its April 16, 

2012 submission. 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015 AND 2025 NOX, DIRECT PM2.5 AND SO2 EMISSION TOTALS (TPY) FOR THE

CANTON-MASSILLON AREA

SO2 NOX PM2.5

2008 (baseline) ............................................................................................................................ 906.79 16,227.26 1,257.11 

2015 ............................................................................................................................................. 812.89 11,001.32 1,088.72 

2025 ............................................................................................................................................. 795.30 7,822.67 912.92 

Change 2008–2025 ..................................................................................................................... ¥111.49 

12% 

decrease 

¥8,404.59 

52% 

decrease 

¥344.19 

27% 

decrease 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48099 

Table 4 shows that the CantonMassillon area reduced NOX emissions 

by 8,404.59 tpy between 2008 and the 

maintenance projection to 2025, direct 

PM2.5 emissions by 344.19 tpy, and 

reduced SO2 emissions by 111.49 tpy 

between 2008 and 2025. 

EPA in this proposal is also 

considering the effect of the Court’s 

remand of EPA’s implementation rule, 

in particular the remand of 

presumptions against consideration of 

VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, 

on requirements for the maintenance 

plan mandated under sections 175A and 

107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To begin with, EPA 

notes that the area has attained the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 standard and that the 

state has shown that attainment of those 

standards is due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions. 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

state’s maintenance plan shows 

continued maintenance of the standard 

by tracking the levels of the precursors 

whose control brought about attainment 

of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standard in 

the Canton-Massillon area. EPA 

therefore believes that the only 

additional consideration related to the 

maintenance plan requirements that 

results from the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision is that of assessing the 

potential role of VOC and ammonia in 

demonstrating continued maintenance 

in this area. As explained below, based 

upon documentation provided by the 

state and supporting information, EPA 

believes that the maintenance plan for 

the Canton-Massillon area need not 

include any additional emission 

reductions of VOC or ammonia in order 

to provide for continued maintenance of 

the standard. 

First, as noted above in EPA’s 

discussion of section 189(e), VOC 

emission levels in this area have 

historically been well-controlled under 

SIP requirements related to ozone and 

other pollutants. Second, total ammonia 

emissions throughout the CantonMassillon area are low, estimated to be 

less than 1,700 tpy. See Table 5 below. 

This amount of ammonia emissions 

appears especially small in comparison 

to the total amounts of NOX, and VOCs 

from sources in the area. Both VOC and 

NOX are also well controlled in the 

Canton-Massillon area and have 

decreased due to permanent and 

enforceable measures such as RACT 

rules controlling stationary sources 

previously approved (75 FR 65572; OAC 

3745–17; OAC 3745–110). Additional 

significant reductions resulted from 

Federal mobile source standards 

discussed above, accounting for 3,536 

tpy of the NOX reductions in the area 

and 665 tpy of PM2.5 reductions between 

2005 and 2008. Future compliance with 

mobile source standards is also 

projected to reduce NOX by 

approximately 700 tpy and PM2.5 by 

approximately 200 tpy between 2008 

and 2025. 

Ohio’s maintenance plan shows a 

projected reduction of NOX emissions 

by 8,404.59 tpy between 2008 and the 

maintenance projection to 2025, direct 

PM2.5 emissions of 344.19 tpy, and 

reduced SO2 emissions of 111.49 tpy 

between 2008 and 2025. See Table 4 

above. In addition, emissions 

inventories used in EPA’s regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS show that VOC emissions are 

projected to decrease by 720 tpy, 

respectively between 2007 and 2020. 

Ammonia emissions are projected to 

increase slightly between 2007 and 2020 

by 8 tpy, which is expected to have 

minimal air quality impact, an impact 

that will be more than compensated by 

the significant emissions reductions 

projected in direct PM2.5, SO2, and NOX. 

See Table 5. Given that all emissions 

except ammonia decrease significantly 

below attainment year levels, providing 

a large margin of safety, the minimal 

increase in ammonia would not be 

expected to impact the areas ability to 

attain either the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2020 VOC AND AMMONIA EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE

CANTON-MASSILLON AREA 1

Ammonia VOCs 

2007 2020 Net change 

2007–2020 2007 2020 Net change 2007–2020 

Point ................................................................................. 21.29 20.40 ¥0.89 919.30 901.40 ¥17.90 

Area .................................................................................. 1491.50 1564.69 73.20 4825.67 4846.99 21.32 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 2.66 3.04 0.38 2723.36 1612.89 ¥1110.47 

On-road ............................................................................ 148.98 84.33 ¥64.65 5199.46 1847.15 ¥3352.30 

Fires ................................................................................. 1.69 1.69 0.00 24.28 24.28 0.00 

Total .......................................................................... 1666.11 1674.16 8.04 13692.06 9232.71 ¥4459.35 

1These emissions estimates were taken from the emissions inventories developed for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS which can be found 

in the docket. 

The current air quality design values 

for the area are 13.0 and 29 mg/m3

(based on 2010–2012 air quality data), 

which are well below the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 

and 35 mg/m3. In addition, available air 

quality modeling analyses show 

continued maintenance of the standard 

during the maintenance period. The 

modeling analysis conducted for the 

RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

indicates that the design value for this 

area is expected to continue to decline 

through 2020. In the RIA analysis, the 

highest 2020 modeled design value for 

the Canton-Massillon area is 10.8 mg/m3. 

Given that NOX, SO2, PM2.5, and VOC 

emissions are projected to decrease 

through 2025, and given that ammonia 

emissions are expected to remain 

relatively constant, it is reasonable to 

conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels in 

this area will continue to decrease 

through 2025. 

Thus, EPA believes that there is 

ample justification to conclude that the 

Canton-Massillon area will continue to 

maintain the standard, even taking into 

consideration the emissions of other 

precursors potentially relevant to PM2.5. 

After consideration of the DC Circuit’s 

January 4, 2013, decision, and for the 

reasons set forth in this notice, EPA 

proposes to approve the state’s 

maintenance plan and its request to 

redesignate the Canton-Massillon area to 

attainment for the PM2.5 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour NAAQS. 

As described in section V.3.b of this 

action, the result of Federal rules and 

consent decree actions, demonstrate that 

the reductions in emissions from point, 

area, and mobile sources in the CantonMassillon area have occurred and are 

mandated to continue to occur through 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48100 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2025 and beyond. Thus the emissions 

inventories set forth in Table 4 show 

that the area will continue to maintain 

the annual PM2.5 standard during the 

maintenance period at least through 

2025. 

Based on the information summarized 

above, Ohio has adequately 

demonstrated maintenance of the PM2.5

standard in this area for a period 

extending in excess of ten years from 

expected final action on Ohio’s 

redesignation request. 

d. Monitoring Network 

Ohio’s plan includes a commitment to 

continue working with West Virginia to 

operate its EPA-approved monitoring 

network, as necessary to demonstrate 

ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. 

Ohio currently operates three PM2.5

monitors in the Canton-Massillon area. 

West Virginia currently operates three 

monitors in their portion of the CantonMassillon area. 

e. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Ohio remains obligated to continue to 

quality-assure monitoring data and enter 

all data into AQS in accordance with 

Federal guidelines. Ohio will use these 

data, supplemented with additional 

information as necessary, to assure that 

the area continues to attain the 

standard. Ohio will also continue to 

develop and submit periodic emission 

inventories as required by the Federal 

Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule 

(67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002) to track 

future levels of emissions. Both of these 

actions will help to verify continued 

attainment in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 58. 

f. Contingency Plan 

The contingency plan provisions are 

designed to promptly correct or prevent 

a violation of the NAAQS that might 

occur after redesignation of an area to 

attainment. Section 175A of the CAA 

requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency measures as 

EPA deems necessary to assure that the 

state will promptly correct a violation of 

the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the contingency 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation of the contingency 

measures, and a time limit for action by 

the state. The state should also identify 

specific indicators to be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be adopted and 

implemented. The maintenance plan 

must include a requirement that the 

state will implement all measures with 

respect to control of the pollutant(s) that 

were contained in the SIP before 

redesignation of the area to attainment. 

See section 175A(d) of the CAA. 

Ohio’s contingency measures include 

a Warning Level Response and an 

Action Level Response. An initial 

Warning Level Response is triggered 

when the average weighted annual 

mean for one year exceeds 15.5 mg/m3. 

A warning level response for the 2006 

24-hour standard shall be prompted 

whenever the 98th percentile 24-hour 

PM2.5 concentration of 35.5 mg/m3

occurs in a single calendar year within 

the maintenance area. In that case, a 

study will be conducted to determine if 

the emissions trends show increases; if 

action is necessary to reverse emissions 

increases, Ohio will follow the same 

procedures for control selection and 

implementation as for an Action Level 

Response. 

The Action Level Response will be 

prompted by any one of the following: 

a Warning Level Response study that 

shows emissions increases, a weighted 

annual mean for the 1997 annual 

standard, or a 98th percentile for the 24- 

hour standard, over a two-year period 

that exceeds the standard or a violation 

of the standard. If an Action Level 

Response is triggered, Ohio will adopt 

and implement appropriate control 

measures within 12 months from the 

end of the year in which monitored air 

quality triggering a response occurs. 

Ohio’s candidate contingency 

measures include the following: 

i. Diesel emission reduction strategies; 

ii. Alternative fuels; 

iii. Statewide NOX RACT rules; 

iv. Impact crushers at recycle scrap 

yards using wet suppression; 

v. Tighter emission offsets for new 

and modified major sources; 

vi. ICI Boilers—SO2 and NOX

controls; 

vii. Emission controls for: 

a. Process heaters; 

b. EGUS; 

c. Internal combustion engines; 

d. Combustion turbines; 

e. Other sources > 100 TPY; 

f. Fleet vehicles; 

g. Concrete manufacturers and; 

h. Aggregate processing plants. 

Ohio further commits to conduct 

ongoing review of its data, and if 

monitored concentrations or emissions 

are trending upward, Ohio commits to 

take appropriate steps to avoid a 

violation if possible. Ohio commits to 

continue implementing SIP 

requirements upon and after 

redesignation. 

EPA believes that Ohio’s contingency 

measures, as well as the commitment to 

continue implementing any SIP 

requirements, satisfy the pertinent 

requirements of section 175A(d). 

As required by section 175A(b) of the 

CAA, Ohio commits to submit to the 

EPA an updated PM2.5 maintenance 

plan eight years after redesignation of 

the Canton-Massillon area to cover an 

additional ten year period beyond the 

initial ten year maintenance period. As 

required by section 175A of the CAA, 

Ohio has also committed to retain the 

PM2.5 control measures contained in the 

SIP prior to redesignation. 

For all of the reasons set forth above, 

EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

maintenance plan for the CantonMassillon area as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 175A. 

5. Adequacy of Ohio’s MVEB 

a. How are MVEBs developed and what 

are the MVEBs for the Canton-Massillon 

area? 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIP revisions and maintenance plans for 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas and for areas 

seeking redesignations to attainment of 

the PM2.5 standard. These emission 

control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP 

and attainment demonstration SIP 

revisions) and maintenance plans create 

MVEBs based on on-road mobile source 

emissions for criteria pollutants and/or 

their precursors to address pollution 

from on-road transportation sources. 

The MVEBs are the portions of the total 

allowable emissions that are allocated to 

highway and transit vehicle use that, 

together with emissions from other 

sources in the area, will provide for 

attainment, RFP or maintenance, as 

applicable. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48101 

12EPA described the circumstances under which 

an area would be required to use MOVES in 

transportation conformity determinations in its 

March 2, 2010, Federal Register notice officially 

releasing MOVES2010 for use in SIPs and 

transportation conformity determinations. (75 FR 

9413) 

13EPA described the circumstances under which 

an area would be required to use MOVES in 

transportation conformity determinations in its 

March 2, 2010 Federal Register notice officially 

releasing MOVES2010 for use in SIPs and 

transportation conformity determinations. (75 FR 

9413) 

Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an 

area seeking a redesignation to 

attainment is established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan and could 

also be established for an interim year 

or years. The MVEB serves as a ceiling 

on emissions from an area’s planned 

transportation system. The MVEB 

concept is further explained in the 

preamble to the November 24, 1993, 

transportation conformity rule (58 FR 

62188). 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs (TIPs) must be 

evaluated to determine if they conform 

to the purpose of the area’s SIP. 

Conformity to the SIP means that 

transportation activities will not cause 

new air quality violations, worsen 

existing air quality violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS or any 

required interim milestone. If a 

transportation plan or TIP does not 

conform, most new transportation 

projects that would expand the capacity 

of roadways cannot go forward. 

Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth 

EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for 

demonstrating and assuring conformity 

of such transportation activities to a SIP. 

When reviewing SIP revisions 

containing MVEBs, including 

attainment strategies, rate-of-progress 

plans, and maintenance plans, EPA 

must affirmatively find adequate and/or 

approve the MVEBs for use in 

determining transportation conformity 

before the MVEBs can be used. Once 

EPA affirmatively approves and/or finds 

the submitted MVEBs to be adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes, the 

MVEBs must be used by state and 

Federal agencies in determining 

whether proposed transportation plans 

and TIPs conform to the SIP as required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA’s 

substantive criteria for determining the 

adequacy of MVEBs are set out in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4). Additionally, to 

approve a motor vehicle emissions 

budget EPA must complete a thorough 

review of the SIP, in this case the PM2.5

maintenance plans, and conclude that 

the SIP will achieve its overall purpose, 

in this case providing for maintenance 

of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard the 

Canton-Massillon area. 

EPA’s process for determining 

adequacy of a MVEB consists of three 

basic steps: (1) Providing public 

notification of a SIP submission; (2) 

providing the public the opportunity to 

comment on the MVEB during a public 

comment period; and, (3) EPA taking 

action on the MVEB. The process for 

determining the adequacy of submitted 

SIP MVEBs is codified at 40 CFR 93.118. 

The maintenance plan submitted by 

Ohio for the Canton-Massillon area 

contains new primary PM2.5 and NOX

MVEBs for the area for the years 2015 

and 2025. The motor vehicle emissions 

budgets were calculated using 

MOVES2010(a). After the adequacy 

finding and approval of the budgets 

become effective, the budgets will have 

to be used in future conformity 

determinations and regional emissions 

analyses prepared by the SCATS, will 

have to be based on the use of 

MOVES2010a or the most recent version 

of MOVES required to be used in 

transportation conformity 

determinations.12 The state has 

determined the 2015 MVEBs for the 

Canton-Massillon area to be 204.33 tpy 

for primary PM2.5 and 7,782.84 tpy for 

NOX. Ohio has determined the 2025 

MVEBs for the Canton-Massillon area to 

be 101.50 tpy for primary PM2.5 and 

4,673.83 tpy for NOX. These MVEBs 

exceed the on-road mobile source 

primary PM2.5 and NOX emissions 

projected by the states for 2015 and 

2025. Ohio has decided to include 

‘‘safety margins’’ as provided for in 40 

CFR 93.124(a) (described below) of 

26.65 tpy and 13.24 tpy for primary 

PM2.5 and 1,015.15 tpy and 609.63 tpy 

for NOX in the 2015 and 2025 MVEBs, 

respectively, to provide for on-road 

mobile source growth. Ohio did not 

provide emission budgets for SO2, 

VOCs, and ammonia because it 

concluded, that emissions of these 

precursors from on-road motor vehicles 

are not significant contributors to the 

area’s PM2.5 air quality problem. 

EPA issued conformity regulations to 

implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

July 2004 and May 2005 (69 FR 40004, 

July 1, 2004 and 70 FR 24280, May 6, 

2005, respectively). Those actions were 

not part of the final rule recently 

remanded to EPA by the Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia in 

NRDC v. EPA, No. 08–1250 (Jan. 4, 

2013), in which the Court remanded to 

EPA the implementation rule for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS because it concluded that 

EPA must implement that NAAQS 

pursuant to the PM-specific 

implementation provisions of subpart 4 

of part D of title I of the CAA, rather 

than solely under the general provisions 

of subpart 1. That decision does not 

affect EPA’s proposed approval of the 

Canton-Massillon area MVEBs. 

In the Canton-Massillon area, the 

motor vehicle budgets including the 

safety margins and motor vehicle 

emission projections for both NOX and 

PM2.5 are lower than the levels in the 

attainment year. 

EPA has reviewed the submitted 

budgets for 2015 and 2025 including the 

added safety margins using the 

conformity rule’s adequacy criteria 

found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and the 

conformity rule’s requirements for 

safety margins found at 40 CFR 

93.124(a). EPA has also completed a 

thorough review of the maintenance 

plan for the Canton-Massillon area. 

Based on the results of this review of the 

budgets and the maintenance plans, 

EPA is approving the 2015 and 2025 

direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets including 

the requested safety margins for the 

Canton-Massillon area. Additionally, 

EPA, through this rulemaking, has 

found the submitted budgets to be 

adequate for use to determine 

transportation conformity in the CantonMassillon area, because EPA has 

determined that the area can maintain 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

relevant maintenance period with onroad mobile source emissions at the 

levels of the MVEBs including the 

requested safety margins. These budgets 

must be used in conformity 

determinations made on or after the 

effective date of this direct final 

rulemaking (40 CFR 93.118(f)(iii)). 

Additionally, transportation conformity 

determinations made after the effective 

date of this notice must be based on 

regional emissions analyses using 

MOVES2010a or a more recent version 

of MOVES that has been approved for 

use in conformity determinations.13

b. What is a safety margin? 

A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference 

between the attainment level of 

emissions (from all sources) and the 

projected level of emissions (from all 

sources) in the maintenance plan. As 

shown in Table 4, the Canton-Massillon 

area is projected to have safety margins 

for NOX and direct PM2.5 of 8,404.59 tpy 

and 344.19 tpy in 2025 (the difference 

between the attainment year, 2008, 

emissions and the projected year of 

2025 emissions for all sources in the 

Canton-Massillon area). The 

transportation conformity rule allows 

areas to allocate all or a portion of a 

‘‘safety margin’’ to the area’s motor 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48102 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

14EPA described the circumstances under which 

an area would be required to use MOVES in 

transportation conformity determinations in its 

March 2, 2010, Federal Register notice officially 

releasing MOVES2010 for use in SIPs and 

transportation conformity determinations. (75 FR 

9413) 

vehicle emissions budgets (40 CFR 

92.124(a)). The MVEBs requested by 

Ohio contain NOX safety margins for 

mobile sources in 2015 and 2025 and 

PM2.5 safety margins for mobile sources 

in 2015 and 2025 are much smaller than 

the allowable safety margins reflected in 

the total emissions for the CantonMassillon area. The state is not 

requesting allocation to the MVEBs of 

the entire available safety margins 

reflected in the demonstration of 

maintenance. Therefore, even though 

the state is requesting MVEBs that 

exceed the projected on-road mobile 

source emissions for 2015 and 2025 

contained in the demonstration of 

maintenance, the increase in on-road 

mobile source emissions that can be 

considered for transportation 

conformity purposes is well within the 

safety margins of the overall PM2.5

maintenance demonstration. 

Therefore, EPA believes that the 

requested budgets, including the 

requested portion of the safety margins, 

provide for a quantity of mobile source 

emissions that would be expected to 

maintain the PM2.5 standard. Once 

allocated to mobile sources, these 

portions of the safety margins will not 

be available for use by other sources. 

c. What action is EPA taking on the 

submitted motor vehicle emissions 

budgets? 

EPA, through this rulemaking, has 

found adequate and is proposing to 

approve the MVEBs for use to determine 

transportation conformity in the CantonMassillon area, because EPA has 

determined that the area can maintain 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS for the relevant maintenance 

period with mobile source emissions at 

the levels of the MVEBs including the 

requested safety margins. These budgets 

must be used in conformity 

determinations if this rulemaking goes 

final. (40 CFR 93.118(f)(iii)) 

Additionally, the determinations must 

be based on regional emissions analyses 

using MOVES2010b or a more recent 

version of MOVES that has been 

approved for use in conformity 

determinations.14

6. 2005 and 2008 Comprehensive 

Emissions Inventory 

As discussed above, section 172(c)(3) 

of the CAA requires areas to submit a 

comprehensive emissions inventory. 

Ohio submitted a 2005 inventory and a 

2008 base year emissions inventory that 

meets this requirement. Emissions 

contained in the submittals cover the 

general source categories of point 

sources, area sources, on-road mobile 

sources, and nonroad mobile sources. 

Further discussion on the methodology 

of compiling the emissions inventories 

can be found in section V.3.b above, and 

in the docket. Ohio’s supplemental 

submittal of base year emission 

inventories of VOCs and ammonia are 

also found in the docket and 

summarized in Table 6, below. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF 2007 BASE

YEAR EMISSIONS OF AMMONIA AND

VOCS FOR THE CANTON-MASSILLON

AREA BY SOURCE TYPE

[tpy] 

Ammonia VOC 

Point .......................... 21.29 919.30 

Area .......................... 1491.50 4825.67 

Nonroad .................... 2.66 2723.36 

On-road ..................... 148.98 5199.46 

Total ................... 1666.11 13692.06 

All emissions discussed in Tables 2, 

3, and 6 above were documented in the 

docket and the appendices of Ohio’s 

redesignation request and supplemental 

submittals. EPA has reviewed Ohio’s 

documentation of the emissions 

inventory techniques and data sources 

used for the derivation of the 2005, 

2007, and 2008 emissions estimates, and 

has found that Ohio has thoroughly 

documented the derivation of these 

emissions inventories. The submittal 

from the state shows that the 2008 

emissions inventory is currently the 

most complete emissions inventories for 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the 

Canton-Massillon area. Based upon 

EPA’s review, we propose to find that 

the 2005 and 2007/2008 emissions 

inventories are as complete and accurate 

as possible given the input data 

available to Ohio, and we are proposing 

to approve them under CAA section 

172(c)(3). 

7. Summary of Proposed Actions 

EPA has previously determined that 

the Canton-Massillon area has attained 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Canton-Massillon area 

continues to attain the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard using the 

latest three years of certified, qualityassured data, and that the area has met 

the requirements for redesignation 

under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 

EPA is proposing to approve the request 

from Ohio to change the legal 

designation of the Canton-Massillon 

area from nonattainment to attainment 

for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to 

approve Ohio’s PM2.5 maintenance plan 

for the Canton-Massillon area as a 

revision to the Ohio SIP because the 

plan meets the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA. EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2005 and 2008 emissions 

inventories for primary PM2.5, NOX, and 

SO2, documented in Ohio’s April 16, 

2012, submittal as satisfying the 

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

CAA for a comprehensive, current 

emission inventory. Finally, EPA finds 

adequate and is approving 2015 and 

2025 primary PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for 

the Canton-Massillon area. These 

MVEBs will be used in future 

transportation conformity analyses for 

the area. 

VI. What are the effects of EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

If finalized, approval of the 

redesignation request would change the 

official designation of the CantonMassillon area for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 

CFR part 81, from nonattainment to 

attainment. If EPA’s proposal is 

finalized, this action would approve the 

maintenance plan for the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards for 

the Canton-Massillon area, as well as 

the 2005 and 2008 emissions 

inventories included with the 

redesignation request, as revisions to the 

Ohio SIP. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

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

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48103 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, these actions: 

• Are not a ’’significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, National Parks, Wilderness. 

Dated: July 24, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18951 Filed 8–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0899; FRL–9842–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

Redesignation of the Chicago Area to 

Attainment of the 1997 Annual Fine 

Particulate Matter Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a 

redesignation request and State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

request submitted by the state of Illinois 

on October 15, 2010, and supplemented 

on September 16, 2011, and May 6, 

2013. The Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency (IEPA) requested 

EPA to redesignate the Illinois portion 

of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, 

Illinois-Indiana (IL–IN) nonattainment 

area to attainment of the 1997 annual 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS 

or standard) and requested EPA 

approval of Illinois’ PM2.5 maintenance 

plan and PM2.5-related emission 

inventories for this area as revisions of 

the Illinois SIP. The Illinois portion 

(Chicago area) of this nonattainment 

area is: Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, 

McHenry, and Will Counties, Aux Sable 

and Goose Lake Townships in Grundy 

County, and Oswego Township in 

Kendall County. EPA is proposing to 

grant the state’s redesignation request 

and to approve the requested Illinois 

SIP revisions, including the state’s plan 

for maintaining attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS in this area 

through 2025. EPA is also proposing to 

approve Illinois’ 2008 and 2025 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and PM2.5 Motor 

Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for 

the Chicago area. Finally, EPA is 

proposing to approve Illinois’ 2002 

NOX, Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Volatile 

Organic Compound, ammonia, and 

primary PM2.5 emission inventories for 

this area. In the context of this proposal 

to redesignate the Chicago 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 PM2.5

standard. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 6, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–0899, 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, 

Chief, 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–2010– 

0899. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1