45116 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

• is 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.); 

• does 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); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action 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 in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Carbon monoxide, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide. 

Dated: July 12, 2013. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18051 Filed 7–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0868; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0463; FRL–9837–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans and 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; Ohio; 

Redesignation of Cleveland-AkronLorain Area to Attainment of the 1997 

Annual Standard and 2006 24-Hour 

Standard for Fine Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State of Ohio’s requests to 

redesignate the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain 

area (Cleveland Area) to attainment for 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS or standards) for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5). EPA’s 

proposed approval involves several 

additional related actions. EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

Cleveland area has attained the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards. EPA is proposing to approve, 

as revisions to the Ohio state 

implementation plan (SIP), the state’s 

plans for maintaining the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards in the 

area. EPA is proposing to approve the 

ammonia, Volatile Organic Compound 

(VOC), nitrogen oxide (NOX), direct 

PM2.5, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission 

inventories submitted by the State as 

meeting the comprehensive emissions 

inventory requirement of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). Finally, EPA finds adequate 

and is proposing to approve Ohio’s NOX

and direct PM2.5 Motor Vehicle 

Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for 2015 and 

2022 for the Cleveland area. In the 

course of proposing to approve Ohio’s 

request to redesignate the Cleveland 

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 CrossState 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 August 26, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0868 and EPA–R05–OAR– 

2012–0463, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Doug Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand delivery: Doug 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 

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 Nos. EPA–R05–OAR–2011– 

0868 and EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0463. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45117 

on submitting comments, go to Section 

I of this document, ‘‘What Should I 

Consider as I Prepare My Comments for 

EPA?’’ 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, at (312) 886–1767 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–1767, 

dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background for the proposal? 

III. What are the criteria for redesignation to 

attainment? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

request? 

A. Attainment Determination and 

Redesignation 

1. The Area Has Attained the 1997 Annual 

and 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

(Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)) 

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D; and the Area 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. The Area Has a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175A of the CAA (Section 

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

B. Comprehensive Emissions Inventories 

C. Ohio’s MVEBs 

V. Summary of Proposed Actions 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the background for the 

proposal? 

Fine particulate pollution can be 

emitted directly from a source (primary 

PM2.5) or formed secondarily through 

chemical reactions in the atmosphere 

involving precursor pollutants emitted 

from a variety of sources. Sulfates are a 

type of secondary particulate formed 

from SO2 emissions from power plants 

and industrial facilities. Nitrates, 

another common type of secondary 

particulate, are formed from combustion 

emissions of NOX from power plants, 

mobile sources and other combustion 

sources. 

The first air quality standards for 

PM2.5 were promulgated on July 18, 

1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated 

an annual standard at a level of 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) of 

ambient air, based on a three year 

average of 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 Cleveland area as 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 air 

quality standards (70 FR 995). EPA 

defined the Cleveland nonattainment 

area to include Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain, 

Medina, Portage, and Summit Counties 

and Ashtabula Township in Ashtabula 

County. 

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 98th percentile 

of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at each 

monitor. 

On November 13, 2009, at 74 FR 

58688, EPA published air quality area 

designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard. In that rulemaking, EPA 

designated the Cleveland area as 

nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard and defined the area to 

include Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain, 

Medina, Portage, and Summit Counties. 

The Ashtabula Township in Ashtabula 

County was not included as part of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 Cleveland 

nonattainment area. Ashtabula County 

was designated as unclassifiable/ 

attainment. 

In response to legal challenges of the 

2006 annual PM2.5 standard, the D.C. 

Circuit remanded this standard to EPA 

for further consideration. See American 

Farm Bureau Federation and National 

Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 

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

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. EPA is not addressing the 

2012 annual PM2.5 standard in this 

proposal. 

On September 14, 2011, at 76 FR 

56641, EPA issued a final determination 

that the Cleveland area attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard by the 

applicable attainment date of April 5, 

2010, based on certified ambient 

monitoring data for the 2007–2009 

monitoring period. 

On October 5, 2011, the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio 

EPA) submitted a request to EPA to 

redesignate the Cleveland area to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, and to approve the SIP 

revision containing an emissions 

inventory, maintenance plan and 

MVEBs for the area. On May 30, 2012, 

Ohio EPA submitted a similar request 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. In 

a supplemental submission to EPA on 

April 30, 2013, Ohio provided ammonia 

and VOC emissions inventories to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45118 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

supplement the comprehensive 

emissions inventories submitted as part 

of the redesignation requests. 

In this proposed redesignation, EPA 

takes into account two recent decisions 

of the D.C. Circuit. In the first of the two 

Court decisions, the D.C. Circuit, on 

August 21, 2012, issued 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. In the second 

decision, on January 4, 2013, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the 

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

Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

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

the ‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

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). 

III. 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 

redesignation provided that: (1) The 

Administrator determines that the area 

has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) 

the Administrator has fully approved 

the 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 reductions 

in emissions resulting from the 

implementation of the applicable SIP, 

Federal emission 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. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

request? 

A. Attainment Determination and 

Redesignation 

As noted above, on September 14, 

2011, EPA determined that the 

Cleveland area had attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard by the applicable 

attainment date. EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Cleveland area 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

standard and is attaining 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard with certified 2010–2012 

monitoring data. EPA is also proposing 

to approve Ohio’s maintenance plans for 

the area and to determine that the area 

has met all other applicable 

redesignation criteria under CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E). The basis for EPA’s 

proposed approval of the redesignation 

requests is as follows: 

1. The Area Has Attained the 1997 

Annual and 2006 24-Hour PM2.5

NAAQS (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)) 

In this action EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Cleveland area 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. An area may be 

considered to be attaining the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS if there are no 

violations, as determined in accordance 

with 40 CFR 50.7 and part 50, appendix 

N, based on three complete consecutive 

calendar years of quality-assured air 

quality monitoring data. To attain this 

standard, the three year average of 

annual means must not exceed 15.0 mg/ 

m3 at all relevant monitoring sites in the 

subject area. Under 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N 4.1, a year of PM2.5 data 

meets completeness requirements when 

at least 75 percent of the scheduled 

sampling days for each quarter have 

valid data. 

The redesignation request includes 

monitoring data for the 2008–2010 time 

period. Certified monitoring data are 

also now available for the 2009–2011 

and 2010–2012 time periods. Table 1, 

below, provides a summary of the PM2.5

annual air quality monitoring data for 

the years 2008–2012. Table 2, below, 

provides the three year average of 

annual means for the 2008–2010, 2009– 

2011 and 2010–2012 time periods. 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL MEAN PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE CLEVELAND AREA

[μg/m3] 

County Monitor 

Yearly annual mean 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Cuyahoga ................................................. 39–035–0034 10.9 10.2 10.9 10.0 9.3 

39–035–0038 14.1 12.8 14.0 12.6 12.3 

39–035–0045 13.7 11.8 13.3 11.9 11.4 

39–035–0060 14.1 12.3 13.7 12.5 12.8 

39–035–0065 14.6 12.4 13.2 12.6 12.3 

39–035–1002 12.0 10.9 11.3 10.4 9.7 

Lake ......................................................... 39–085–0007 ........................ 10.4 10.4 9.4 9.0 

39–085–3002 11.5 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Lorain ....................................................... 39–093–3002 11.4 9.9 10.4 9.4 9.5 

Medina ..................................................... 39–103–0003 11.8 10.8 10.8 ........................ ........................

39–103–0004 ........................ ........................ ........................ 11.0 9.3 

Portage ..................................................... 39–133–0002 12.1 11.1 11.2 10.5 9.3 

Summit ..................................................... 39–153–0017 13.8 12.6 13.4 11.8 10.8 

39–153–0023 12.9 11.4 12.5 11.1 10.0 

TABLE 2—THREE YEAR AVERAGE OF THE ANNUAL MEAN PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE CLEVELAND AREA

[μg/m3] 

County Monitor 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 

Cuyahoga ......................................................................................................... 39–035–0034 10.7 10.4 10.1 

39–035–0038 13.6 13.1 13.0 

39–035–0045 12.9 12.3 12.2 

39–035–0060 13.4 12.8 13.0 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45119 

TABLE 2—THREE YEAR AVERAGE OF THE ANNUAL MEAN PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE CLEVELAND AREA— 

Continued 

[μg/m3] 

County Monitor 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 

39–035–0065 13.4 12.7 12.7 

39–035–1002 11.4 10.9 10.5 

Lake ................................................................................................................. 39–085–0007 10.8 10.1 9.6 

39–085–3002 ........................ ........................ ........................

Lorain ............................................................................................................... 39–093–3002 10.6 9.9 9.7 

Medina ............................................................................................................. 39–103–0003 11.1 ........................ ........................

39–103–0004 ........................ ........................ ........................

Portage ............................................................................................................ 39–133–0002 11.5 10.9 10.3 

Summit ............................................................................................................. 39–153–0017 13.3 12.6 12.0 

39–153–0023 12.3 11.7 11.2 

Two monitors were operated in Lake 

County during the 2008–2012 time 

period. Site 39–085–3002 shut down on 

December 31, 2008 and site 39–085– 

0007 began operating on January 1, 

2009. EPA approved the combination of 

these monitors for purposes of 

calculating the design value. 

The data in Tables 1 and 2 show that 

all relevant PM2.5 monitors in the 

Cleveland PM2.5 nonattainment area 

have recorded PM2.5 concentrations 

attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard during the 2008–2010, 2009– 

2011, and 2010–2012 time periods. On 

September 14, 2011, EPA determined 

that the Cleveland area had attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard by the 

applicable attainment date. 

Site 39–103–0003 in Medina County 

ceased operation on December 31, 2010, 

collecting complete data for all quarters 

in 2008–2010. Site 39–103–0004 began 

operation on September 1, 2009. 

However, because the site only began 

submitting data to EPA’s Air Quality 

System in 2011, three years of data are 

not available for evaluation. Because the 

monitor in Medina County has 

historically recorded one of the lowest 

PM2.5 concentrations in the area, we are 

confident that EPA can rely on the other 

monitors in the area to determine that 

the area continues to attain the standard 

for the 2010–2012 time period. 

Therefore, based on complete, quality 

assured and certified PM2.5 monitoring 

data for the most recent, 2010–2012, 

time period, EPA concludes that the 

Cleveland area continues to attain the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard. 

In this action EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Cleveland area has 

attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

based on complete quality assured, 

certified data for the 2010–2012 

monitoring period. An area may be 

considered to be attaining the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS if there are no 

violations, as determined in accordance 

with 40 CFR 50.13 and part 50, 

appendix N, based on three complete 

consecutive calendar years of qualityassured air quality monitoring data. To 

attain this standard, the three year 

average of the 98th percentile 24-hour 

concentration must not exceed 35 mg/m3

at all relevant monitoring sites in the 

subject area. Under 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix N 4.1, a year of PM2.5 data 

meets completeness requirements when 

at least 75 percent of the scheduled 

sampling days for each quarter have 

valid data. 

The redesignation request includes 

monitoring data for the 2008–2010 time 

period. Certified monitoring data are 

also now available for the 2009–2011 

and 2010–2012 time periods. Table 3, 

below, provides a summary of the PM2.5

24-hour air quality monitoring data for 

the years 2008–2012. Table 4, below, 

provides the three year average of 98th 

percentile 24-hour concentrations for 

the 2008–2010, 2009–2011 and 2010– 

2012 time periods. 

TABLE 3—98TH PERCENTILE 24-HOUR PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE CLEVELAND AREA

[μg/m3] 

County Monitor 

98th percentile 24-hour concentrations 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Cuyahoga ................................................. 39–035–0034 31.5 24.7 26.8 22.6 19.5 

39–035–0038 39.4 29.9 30.5 29.7 28.8 

39–035–0045 35.3 23.5 32.7 25.2 24.5 

39–035–0060 36.9 28.9 30.9 26.5 33.5 

39–035–0065 33.8 28.9 27.3 27.0 23.3 

39–035–1002 30.1 20.5 26.5 23.9 19.9 

Lake ......................................................... 39–085–0007 ........................ 19.8 26.9 23.3 19.4 

39–085–3002 28.0 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Lorain ....................................................... 39–093–3002 32.1 21.5 24.4 23.1 22.0 

Medina ..................................................... 39–103–0003 30.3 25.7 28.8 ........................ ........................

39–103–0004 ........................ ........................ ........................ 25.0 19.1 

Portage ..................................................... 39–133–0002 29.4 23.8 31.9 23.2 18.2 

Summit ..................................................... 39–153–0017 37.6 29.2 32.7 26.4 20.3 

39–153–0023 32.7 24.8 30.2 24.8 19.8 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45120 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—THREE YEAR AVERAGE OF THE 98TH PERCENTILE 24-HOUR PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE CLEVELAND

AREA

[μg/m3] 

County Monitor 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 

Cuyahoga ......................................................................................................... 39–035–0034 28 25 23 

39–035–0038 33 30 29 

39–035–0045 31 27 27 

39–035–0060 32 29 30 

39–035–0065 30 28 26 

39–035–1002 26 24 23 

Lake ................................................................................................................. 39–085–0007 25 23 23 

39–085–3002 25 ........................ ........................

Lorain ............................................................................................................... 39–093–3002 26 23 23 

Medina ............................................................................................................. 39–103–0003 28 ........................ ........................

39–103–0004 ........................ ........................ ........................

Portage ............................................................................................................ 39–133–0002 28 26 24 

Summit ............................................................................................................. 39–153–0017 33 29 26 

39–153–0023 29 27 25 

The data in Tables 3 and 4 show all 

relevant PM2.5 monitors in the 

Cleveland PM2.5 nonattainment area 

have recorded PM2.5 concentrations 

attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS during the 2008–2010, 2009– 

2011, and 2010–2012 time periods. As 

with the annual standard, EPA 

combined data from two monitors in 

Lake County as Ohio requested. Both of 

these sites collected complete 

monitoring data during the quarters the 

monitors were operated. 

As noted previously, two monitors 

were also operated in Medina County 

during the 2008–2012 time period. Site 

39–103–0003 ceased operation on 

December 31, 2010, collecting complete 

data for all quarters in 2008–2010. Site 

39–103–0004 began operation on 

September 1, 2009, began submitting 

data to EPA’s Air Quality System in 

2011, and does not have three years of 

data available for evaluation. Because 

the monitor in Medina County has 

historically recorded one of the lowest 

PM2.5 concentrations in the area, we are 

confident that EPA can rely on the other 

monitors in the area to determine that 

the area is attaining the standard for the 

2010–2012 time period. 

Data for monitoring site 39–035–0060 

are incomplete in 2009. However, data 

for the other sites in Cuyahoga County 

are complete and well below the 24- 

hour standard, with the highest 98th 

percentile 24-hour concentration being 

29.9 mg/m3 at site 39–035–0038, the 

historical design value site. In addition, 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

PM2.5 monitoring data at site 39–035– 

0060 for the most recent, 2010–2012, 

time period, show attainment of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Therefore, 

based on complete, quality-assured and 

certified PM2.5 monitoring data for the 

most recent, 2010–2012, time period, 

EPA concludes that the Cleveland area 

is attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard. 

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D; and the Area Has a Fully 

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) 

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

107(d)(3)(E)(ii)) 

We have determined that Ohio’s SIP 

meets all applicable SIP requirements 

for purposes of redesignation for the 

Cleveland area under section 110 of the 

CAA (general SIP requirements) and 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). In addition, 

with the exception of the emissions 

inventory under section 172(c)(3), we 

have approved all applicable 

requirements of the Ohio SIP for 

purposes of redesignation, 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 inventories as meeting 

the section 172(c)(3) comprehensive 

emissions inventory requirement. 

In making these determinations, we 

have ascertained which SIP 

requirements are applicable to the area 

for purposes of redesignation, and have 

determined that there are SIP measures 

meeting those requirements and that 

they are fully approved under section 

110(k) of the CAA. 

a. The Cleveland Area Has Met All 

Applicable Requirements for Purposes 

of Redesignation 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: 

(1) Include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CAA; (2) 

provide for establishment and operation 

of appropriate devices, methods, 

systems, and procedures necessary to 

monitor ambient air quality; (3) provide 

for implementation of a source permit 

program to regulate the modification 

and construction of any stationary 

source within the areas covered by the 

plan; (4) include provisions for the 

implementation of part C, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part 

D, New Source Review (NSR) permit 

programs; (5) include criteria for 

stationary source emission control 

measures, monitoring, and reporting; (6) 

include provisions for air quality 

modeling; and, (7) provide for public 

and local agency participation in 

planning and emission control rule 

development. 

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

requires that SIPs contain measures to 

prevent sources in a state from 

significantly contributing to air quality 

problems in another state. EPA holds 

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 conclude that 

these requirements should not be 

construed to be applicable requirements 

for purposes of redesignation. 

Further, we conclude that the other 

section 110 elements described above 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45121 

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 

redesignation. EPA has previously 

approved provisions of Ohio’s SIP 

addressing section 110 requirements, 

including provisions addressing 

particulate matter, at 40 CFR 52.1870. 

On December 5, 2007, and September 4, 

2009, Ohio made submittals addressing 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ elements required 

by section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. EPA 

approved elements of Ohio’s submittals 

on July 13, 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 Cleveland 

area. Therefore, EPA believes that these 

SIP elements are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of review of 

the state’s PM2.5 redesignation requests. 

ii. Part D Requirements 

EPA is proposing to determine that, 

upon approval of the base year 

emissions inventories discussed in 

section IV.B. of this rulemaking, the 

Ohio SIP will meet the applicable SIP 

requirements for the Cleveland 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. Subpart 4 of part 

D, found in sections 185–190 of the 

CAA, provides more specific 

requirements for particulate matter 

nonattainment areas. 

(1) Subpart 1 

(a) Section 172 Requirements 

For purposes of evaluating these 

redesignation requests, the applicable 

section 172 SIP requirements for the 

Cleveland area are contained in sections 

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 Available 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. See 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 this redesignation because the 

Cleveland area is monitoring attainment 

of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Id. The requirement to 

submit the section 172(c)(9) contingency 

measures is similarly not applicable for 

purposes of this redesignation. Id. 

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission 

and approval of a comprehensive, 

accurate, and current inventory of actual 

emissions. Ohio submitted 2005 and 

2008 emissions inventories along with 

their redesignation request and 

supplemented the inventories on April 

30, 2013. As discussed below in section 

IV.B., EPA is proposing to approve the 

2005 and 2008 emission inventories as 

meeting the section 172(c)(3) emissions 

inventory requirement for the Cleveland 

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 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 Cleveland 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 Cleveland area upon redesignation 

to attainment. See rulemakings for 

Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467–12468, 

March 7, 1995); Cleveland-AkronLorain, 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 

find that the Ohio SIP meets the section 

110(a)(2) requirements applicable for 

purposes of redesignation. 

(b) Section 176 Conformity 

Requirements 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that Federallysupported or funded activities, 

including highway projects, conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIPs. 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). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45122 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 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. 

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). 

EPA approved Ohio’s general 

conformity SIP on March 11, 1996 (61 

FR 9646) and Ohio’s transportation 

conformity SIP on and May 30, 2000 (65 

FR 34395), and April 27, 2007 (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. 

Ohio has submitted onroad MVEBs 

for the Cleveland area of 1,371.35 tons 

per year (tpy) and 880.89 tpy primary 

PM2.5 and 35,094.70 tpy and 17,263.65 

tpy NOX for the years 2015 and 2022, 

respectively. The area must use the 

MVEBs from the maintenance plan in 

any conformity determination that is 

made on or after the effective date of the 

adequacy finding and maintenance plan 

approval. 

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

Circuit Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 

(a) Background 

As discussed above, on January 4, 

2013, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit 

remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air 

Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72 

FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

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

16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428 

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

EPA erred in implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general 

implementation provisions of subpart 1 

of part D of title I of the CAA, rather 

than the particulate-matter-specific 

provisions of subpart 4 of Part D of Title 

I. Although the Court’s ruling did not 

directly address the 2006 PM2.5

standard, EPA is taking into account the 

Court’s position on subpart 4 and the 

1997 PM2.5 standard in evaluating 

redesignations for the 2006 standard. 

(b) Proposal on This Issue 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision 

does not prevent EPA from 

redesignating the Cleveland 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 Cleveland redesignation requests 

and disregards the provisions of its 1997 

PM2.5 implementation rule recently 

remanded by the Court, the state’s 

requests for redesignation of this area 

still qualify for approval. EPA’s 

discussion takes into account the effect 

of the Court’s ruling on the area’s 

maintenance plans, which EPA views as 

approvable when subpart 4 

requirements are considered. 

(i) Applicable Requirements for 

Purposes of Evaluating the 

Redesignation Requests 

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 requests 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 

Cleveland redesignation. Under its 

longstanding interpretation of the CAA, 

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

to mean, as a threshold matter, that the 

part D provisions which are 

‘‘applicable’’ and which must be 

approved in order for EPA to 

redesignate an area include only those 

which came due prior to a state’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992 (Calcagni memorandum). See also 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993 (Shapiro 

memorandum); Final Redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 

12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final 

Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 

FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003); 

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

(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation and expressly rejecting 

Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of 

‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is 

‘‘whatever should have been in the plan 

at the time of attainment rather than 

whatever actually was in the plan and 

already implemented or due at the time 

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

that Ohio submitted its redesignation 

requests, requirements under subpart 4 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45123 

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). 

were not due, and indeed, were not yet 

known to apply. 

EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the Cleveland redesignation, 

the subpart 4 requirements were not due 

at the time the state submitted the 

redesignation requests is in keeping 

with the EPA’s interpretation of subpart 

2 requirements for subpart 1 ozone areas 

redesignated subsequent to the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision in South Coast Air 

Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 

882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In South Coast, the 

Court found that EPA was not permitted 

to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard solely under subpart 1, and 

held that EPA was required under the 

statute to implement the standard under 

the ozone-specific requirements of 

subpart 2 as well. Subsequent to the 

South Coast decision, in evaluating and 

acting upon redesignation requests for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard that 

were submitted to EPA for areas under 

subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA that 

‘‘applicable requirements’’, for purposes 

of evaluating a redesignation, are those 

that had been due at the time the 

redesignation request was submitted. 

See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of 

Manitowoc County and Door County 

Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 

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

EPA therefore did not consider subpart 

2 requirements to be ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of evaluating whether the 

area should be redesignated under 

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

EPA’s interpretation derives from the 

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

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

area to be redesignated, a state must 

meet ‘‘all requirements ‘applicable’ to 

the area under section 110 and part D’’. 

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

EPA must have fully approved the 

‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the area seeking 

redesignation. These two sections read 

together support EPA’s interpretation of 

‘‘applicable’’ as only those requirements 

that came due prior to submission of a 

complete redesignation request. First, 

holding states to an ongoing obligation 

to adopt new CAA requirements that 

arose after the state submitted its 

redesignation request, in order to be 

redesignated, would make it 

problematic or impossible for EPA to act 

on redesignation requests in accordance 

with the 18-month deadline Congress 

set for EPA action in section 

107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ were interpreted to be a 

continuing flow of requirements with no 

reasonable limitation, states, after 

submitting a redesignation request, 

would be forced continuously to make 

additional SIP submissions that in turn 

would require EPA to undertake further 

notice-and-comment rulemaking actions 

to act on those submissions. This would 

create a regime of unceasing rulemaking 

that would delay action on the 

redesignation request beyond the 18 

month timeframe provided by the CAA 

for this purpose. 

Second, a fundamental premise for 

redesignating a nonattainment area to 

attainment is that the area has attained 

the relevant NAAQS due to emission 

reductions from existing controls. Thus, 

an area for which a redesignation 

request has been submitted would have 

already attained the NAAQS as a result 

of satisfying statutory requirements that 

came due prior to the submission of the 

request. Absent a showing that 

unadopted and unimplemented 

requirements are necessary for future 

maintenance, it is reasonable to view 

the requirements applicable for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request as including only those SIP 

requirements that have already come 

due. These are the requirements that led 

to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, 

for redesignation approval, that a state 

also satisfy additional SIP requirements 

coming due after the state submits its 

complete redesignation request, and 

while EPA is reviewing it, would 

compel the state to do more than is 

necessary to attain the NAAQS, without 

a showing that the additional 

requirements are necessary for 

maintenance. 

In the context of this redesignation, 

the timing and nature of the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. 

EPA compound the consequences of 

imposing requirements that come due 

after the redesignation requests are 

submitted. The state submitted its 

redesignation requests on October 5, 

2011, and May 30, 2012, 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 requests to 

comply now with requirements of 

subpart 4 that the Court announced only 

in its January, 2013, decision on the 

1997 PM2.5 implementation rule, 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 requests for an area that is 

already attaining the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 standards and that met all 

applicable requirements known to be in 

effect at the time of the requests. For 

EPA now to reject the redesignation 

requests solely because the state did not 

expressly address subpart 4 

requirements of which it had no notice, 

would inflict the same unfairness 

condemned by the Court in Sierra Club 

v. Whitman. 

(ii) Subpart 4 Requirements and Ohio’s 

Redesignation Requests 

Even if EPA were to take the view that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision 

requires that, in the context of pending 

redesignations for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 standards, subpart 4 requirements 

were due and in effect at the time the 

state submitted its redesignation 

requests, EPA proposes to determine 

that the Cleveland area still qualifies for 

redesignation to attainment. As 

explained below, EPA believes that the 

redesignation request for the Cleveland 

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 Cleveland 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45124 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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. 

for PM10 3 nonattainment areas, and 

under the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same 

statutory requirements also apply for 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has 

longstanding general guidance that 

interprets the 1990 amendments to the 

CAA, making recommendations to states 

for meeting the statutory requirements 

for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See, 

‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clear Air Act Amendments 

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

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

Preamble, EPA discussed the 

relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 

SIP requirements, and pointed out that 

subpart 1 requirements were to an 

extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally 

related to, the more specific PM–10 

requirements.’’ 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 

1992). The subpart 1 requirements 

include, among other things, provisions 

for attainment demonstrations, 

reasonably available control measures 

(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 

Cleveland area to be a ‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5

nonattainment area. Under section 188 

of the CAA, all areas designated 

nonattainment areas under subpart 4 

would initially be classified by 

operation of law as ‘‘moderate’’ 

nonattainment areas, and would remain 

moderate nonattainment areas unless 

and until EPA reclassifies the area as a 

‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area. 

Accordingly, EPA believes that it is 

appropriate to limit the evaluation of 

the potential impact of subpart 4 

requirements to those that would be 

applicable to moderate nonattainment 

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

4 apply to moderate nonattainment 

areas and include the following: (1) An 

approved permit program for 

construction of new and modified major 

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

(2) an attainment demonstration (section 

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

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

quantitative milestones demonstrating 

RFP toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date (section 

189(c)). 

The permit requirements of subpart 4, 

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

refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit 

provisions requirements of sections 172 

and 173 to PM10, without adding to 

them. Consequently, EPA believes that 

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

impose for redesignation purposes any 

additional requirements for moderate 

areas beyond those contained in subpart 

1.4 In any event, in the context of 

redesignation, EPA has long relied on 

the interpretation that a fully approved 

nonattainment new source review 

program is not considered an applicable 

requirement for redesignation, provided 

the area can maintain the standard with 

a PSD program after redesignation. A 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ See also 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). 

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 Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990’’; (57 FR 13498, 

13564, April 16, 1992). 

The General Preamble also explained 

that 

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

directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by 

the applicable date. These requirements no 

longer apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for redesignation. 

Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance 

plans . . . provides specific requirements for 

contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas. 

Id. 

EPA similarly stated in its 1992 

Calcagni memorandum that, ‘‘The 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress and other measures needed for 

attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning for areas not attaining the 

standard.’’ 

It is evident that even if we were to 

consider the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that 

attainment-related requirements specific 

to subpart 4 should be imposed 

retroactively 6 and thus are now past 

due, those requirements do not apply to 

an area that is attaining the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 standards, 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 2006 PM2.5 standard and 

continues to attain the 1997 PM2.5

standard. Under its longstanding 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45125 

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 Cleveland area has reduced VOC emissions 

through the implementation of various control 

programs including VOC Reasonably Available 

Control Technology regulations and various onroad 

and nonroad motor vehicle control programs. 

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 requests. 

(iii) Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

The D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA 

remanded to EPA the two rules at issue 

in the case with instructions to EPA to 

re-promulgate them consistent with the 

requirements of subpart 4. EPA in this 

section addresses the Court’s opinion 

with respect to PM2.5 precursors. While 

past implementation of subpart 4 for 

PM10 has allowed for control of PM10

precursors such as NOX from major 

stationary, mobile, and area sources in 

order to attain the standard as 

expeditiously as practicable, CAA 

section 189(e) specifically provides that 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10 shall 

also apply to PM10 precursors from 

those sources, except where EPA 

determines that major stationary sources 

of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels which 

exceed the standard in the area.’’ 

EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 implementation 

rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit, 

contained rebuttable presumptions 

concerning certain PM2.5 precursors 

applicable to attainment plans and 

control measures related to those plans. 

Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA 

provided, among other things, that a 

state was ‘‘not required to address VOC 

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

plan precursor[s] and to evaluate 

sources of VOC [and ammonia] 

emissions in the State for control 

measures.’’ EPA intended these to be 

rebuttable presumptions. EPA 

established these presumptions at the 

time because of uncertainties regarding 

the emission inventories for these 

pollutants and the effectiveness of 

specific control measures in various 

regions of the country in reducing PM2.5

concentrations. EPA also left open the 

possibility for such regulation of VOC 

and ammonia in specific areas where 

that was necessary. 

The Court in its January 4, 2013, 

decision made reference to both section 

189(e) and 40 CFR 51.1002, and stated 

that, ‘‘In light of our disposition, we 

need not address the petitioners’ 

challenge to the presumptions in [40 

CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic 

compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5

precursors, as subpart 4 expressly 

governs precursor presumptions.’’ 

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

Elsewhere in the Court’s opinion, 

however, the Court observed: 

Ammonia is a precursor to fine particulate 

matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5

and PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area 

governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 

presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 

7513a(e) [section 189(e)]. 

Id. at 21, n.7. 

For a number of reasons, EPA believes 

that its proposed redesignation of the 

Cleveland 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 requests, 

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 the 

Cleveland area EPA believes that doing 

so is consistent with proposing 

redesignation of the area for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 standards. The 

Cleveland area has attained the 

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 CAA 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 Cleveland 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 and the 2006 24-hour 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 Cleveland 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45126 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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). 

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 Cleveland area 

has already attained the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS with its current approach to 

regulation of PM2.5 precursors, EPA 

believes that it is reasonable to conclude 

in the context of this redesignation that 

there is no need to revisit the attainment 

control strategy with respect to the 

treatment of precursors. Even if the 

Court’s decision is construed to impose 

an obligation, in evaluating these 

redesignation requests, to consider 

additional precursors under subpart 4, it 

would not affect EPA’s approval here of 

Ohio’s requests for redesignation of the 

Cleveland area. In the context of a 

redesignation, the area has shown that 

it has attained the standard. Moreover, 

the state has shown and EPA has 

proposed to determine that attainment 

in this area is due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions on all 

precursors necessary to provide for 

continued attainment. It follows 

logically that no further control of 

additional precursors is necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA does not view the 

January 4, 2013, decision of the Court as 

precluding redesignation of the 

Cleveland area to attainment for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS at this time. 

In sum, even if Ohio were required to 

address precursors for the Cleveland 

area under subpart 4 rather than under 

subpart 1, as interpreted in EPA’s 

remanded PM2.5 implementation rule, 

EPA would still conclude that the area 

had met all applicable requirements for 

purposes of redesignation in accordance 

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

(iv) Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of 

Precursors 

A discussion of the impact of the 

Court’s decision on the maintenance 

plan required under sections 175A and 

107(d)(3)(E)(iv) can be found in section 

IV.A.4.d. below. 

b. The Cleveland Area Has a Fully 

Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 

110(k) of the CAA 

Upon final approval of Ohio’s 

comprehensive 2005 and 2008 

emissions inventories, EPA will have 

fully approved the Ohio SIP for the 

Cleveland area under section 110(k) of 

the CAA for all requirements applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. 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, EPA is 

proposing to approve Ohio’s 2005 and 

2008 emissions inventories for the 

Cleveland area as meeting the 

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

CAA. No Cleveland area SIP provisions 

are currently disapproved, conditionally 

approved, or partially approved. 

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 finds that Ohio has demonstrated 

that the observed air quality 

improvement in the Cleveland area is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP, Federal 

measures, and other state-adopted 

measures. 

In making this showing, Ohio EPA 

has calculated the change in emissions 

between 2005, one of the years in the 

period during which the Cleveland area 

monitored nonattainment, and 2008, 

one of the years in the period during 

which the Cleveland 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 Cleveland area 

and upwind 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. Consent Decrees 

Some of the emissions reductions 

resulting from the consent decrees 

occurred during the attainment period, 

while other reductions will aid in 

maintenance of the standards. 

A March 18, 2005, consent decree 

with Ohio Edison Company required the 

Eastlake Power Plant, located in 

Eastlake, Ohio, to reduce NOX emissions 

by 11,000 tpy beginning in 2007. 

Beginning in September 2011, the 

Eastlake plant was only be used for 

emergency power purposes. The facility 

is now scheduled to completely shut 

down in 2015. 

A December 9, 2005, consent decree 

required Saint Gobain Performance 

Plastics Corporation to pay, in addition 

to a civil penalty, $12,000 to Ohio EPA’s 

Clean Diesel School Bus Program Fund. 

A September 30, 2011, consent 

agreement and final order requires 

Potters Industries, Inc. to retrofit a fleet, 

fleets, or portion thereof, of diesel buses 

or diesel vehicles contracted for public 

use, located within 50 miles of 

Cleveland. Potters Industries is required 

to spend a minimum of $50,000 and 

complete the project by May 18, 2012. 

A May 11, 2012, consent order and 

final judgement between Ohio and 

Procex, Ltd. requires several actions by 

Procex, including implementing the 

following no later than November 30, 

2012: (1) An air pollution capture 

system for the collection of particulate 

emissions from emissions units P003, 

P005, and P007, and associated 

operations; (2) ductwork and an exhaust 

fan to transfer the collected emissions 

from the air pollution capture system for 

all four emissions units to air pollution 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45127 

11See Regulatory Impact Analysis—Control of Air 

Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur 

Control Requirements, December 1999, EPA420–R– 

99–023, p. IV–42. 

control equipment; and, (3) air pollution 

control equipment that meets a total 

hourly particulate emissions limit of 

1.65 pounds/hour. Procex is also 

required to contribute $2,000 to Ohio 

EPA’s Clean Diesel School Bus Program 

Fund by April 30, 2014. 

A September 28, 2012, consent 

agreement and final order order with 

Charter Manufacturing Company, Inc. 

requires the following which had 

already been completed by Charter 

Manufacturing: (1) By August 2010, 

modification of the existing canopy area 

to better contain and evacuate 

emissions; (2) by June 1, 2012, 

submission to EPA of a protocol to 

performance test the melt shop 

baghouse; (3) by July 1, 2012, 

performance testing of the melt shop 

baghouse; and, (4) by August 15, 2012, 

submission to EPA of a report of the 

performance testing results. In addition, 

Charter Manufacturing is required to: (1) 

Submit an application to Ohio EPA 

requesting the conditions and emission 

rates associated with stainless steel 

production be removed from title V and 

other air permits; (2) comply with the 

melt shop baghouse pressure drop 

operational and monitoring 

requirements specified in the 

administrative consent order; and, (3) 

keep the door at the west end of the melt 

shop closed, except for times when a 

scrap car needs to enter or exit the melt 

shop. 

ii. 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 VOC, NOX, and SO2

emissions from new cars and light duty 

trucks. The Federal rules were phased 

in between 2004 and 2009. The EPA has 

estimated that, by the time post-2009 

vehicles have entirely replaced pre-2009 

vehicles, the following vehicle NOX

emission reductions will have occurred 

nationwide: Passenger cars (light duty 

vehicles) (77 percent); light duty trucks, 

minivans, and sports utility vehicles (86 

percent); and, larger sports utility 

vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks (69 to 

95 percent). Some of the emissions 

reductions resulting from new vehicle 

standards occurred during the 2008– 

2010 attainment period; however 

additional reductions will continue to 

occur throughout the maintenance 

period as new vehicles replace older 

vehicles. The Tier 2 standards also 

reduced the sulfur content of gasoline to 

30 parts per million (ppm) beginning in 

January 2006. Gasoline sold in the 

region including Ohio prior to 

implementation of the Tier 2 sulfur 

content limits had an average sulfur 

content of 276 ppm.11

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. This 

rule, which EPA issued in July 2000, 

limited the sulfur content of diesel fuel 

beginning 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 percent reduction in 

primary PM2.5 emissions and a 95 

percent reduction in NOX emissions for 

these new engines using low sulfur 

diesel, compared to existing engines 

using higher sulfur content diesel. The 

reductions in fuel sulfur content 

occurred by the 2008–2010 attainment 

period. Some of the emissions 

reductions resulting from new vehicle 

standards occurred during the 2008– 

2010 attainment period, however 

additional reductions will continue to 

occur throughout the maintenance 

period as the fleet of older heavy duty 

diesel engines turns over. 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 in construction, agriculture, and 

mining equipment, which established 

engine emission standards to be phased 

in between 2008 and 2014. The rule also 

required reductions to the sulfur content 

in nonroad diesel fuel by over 99 

percent. 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 

percent, compared to current nonroad 

engines using higher sulfur content 

diesel. The reduction in fuel sulfur 

content yielded an immediate reduction 

in sulfate particle emissions from all 

diesel vehicles. In addition, some 

emissions reductions from the new 

engine emission standards were realized 

over the 2008–2010 time period, 

although most of the reductions will 

occur over the maintenance period as 

the fleet of older nonroad diesel engines 

turns over. 

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 offhighway 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 all of the nonroad 

spark-ignition engine and recreational 

engine standards, an overall 72 percent 

reduction in VOC, 80 percent reduction 

in NOX and 56 percent reduction in 

carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are 

expected by 2020. Some of these 

emission reductions occurred by the 

2008–2010 attainment period and 

additional emission reductions will 

occur during the maintenance period as 

the fleet turns over. 

iii. Control Measures Implemented in 

Ohio and in Upwind Areas 

Given the significance of sulfates and 

nitrates in the Cleveland area, the area’s 

air quality is strongly affected by 

regulation of SO2 and NOX emissions 

from power plants. 

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 Phase II 

beginning in 2007. Emission reductions 

resulting from regulations developed in 

response to the NOX SIP Call are 

permanent and enforceable. 

CAIR and CSAPR. EPA promulgated 

CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011), 

to replace CAIR, which has been in 

place since 2005. See 76 FR 59517. 

CAIR requires significant reductions in 

emissions of SO2 and NOX from electric 

generating units to limit the interstate 

transport of these pollutants and the 

ozone and fine particulate matter they 

form in the atmosphere. See 76 FR 

70093. The D.C. Circuit initially vacated 

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

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

remanded the rule to EPA without 

vacatur to preserve the environmental 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45128 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

benefits provided by CAIR, North 

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

(D.C. Cir. 2008). 

On December 30, 2011, the D.C. 

Circuit issued an order addressing the 

status of CSAPR and CAIR in response 

to motions filed by numerous parties 

seeking a stay of CSAPR pending 

judicial review. In that order, the Court 

stayed CSAPR pending resolution of the 

petitions for review of that rule in EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 

11–1302 and consolidated cases). The 

Court also indicated that EPA was 

expected to continue to administer 

CAIR in the interim until judicial 

review of CSAPR was completed. 

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

issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. In 

that decision, it also ordered EPA to 

continue administering CAIR ‘‘pending 

the promulgation of a valid 

replacement.’’ EME Homer City, 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. 

In light of these unique circumstances 

and for the reasons explained below, to 

the extent that attainment is due to 

emission reductions associated with 

CAIR, EPA is here proposing to 

determine that those reductions are 

sufficiently permanent and enforceable 

for purposes of CAA sections 

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

therefore proposes to approve the 

redesignation requests and the related 

SIP revisions for the Cleveland area, 

including Ohio’s plan for maintaining 

attainment of the PM2.5 standard. 

As directed by the D.C. Circuit, CAIR 

remains in place and enforceable until 

substituted by a valid replacement rule. 

Ohio submitted a CAIR SIP which was 

approved by EPA on February 1, 2008 

(73 FR 6034). On July 15, 2009 Ohio 

submitted revisions to its CAIR SIP, 

which EPA approved on September 25, 

2009 (74 FR 48857). In its redesignation 

requests, Ohio notes that in 2008 and 

2009 facilities began preparing for and 

implementing control programs to 

address CAIR and consent decrees. 

Thus, it is likely that some of the 

emissions reductions that lead to 

monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards in the Cleveland area were 

due to sources beginning to comply 

with CAIR requirements. The qualityassured, certified monitoring data used 

to demonstrate the area’s attainment of 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS by the attainment deadline was 

also impacted by CAIR. 

To the extent that Ohio is relying on 

CAIR in its maintenance plan, the 

directive from the D.C. Circuit in EME 

Homer City ensures that the reductions 

associated with CAIR will be permanent 

and enforceable for the necessary time 

period. EPA has been ordered by the 

Court to develop a new rule to address 

interstate transport to replace CSAPR, 

and the opinion makes clear that after 

promulgating that new rule EPA must 

provide states an opportunity to draft 

and submit SIPs to implement that rule. 

Thus, CAIR will remain in place until 

EPA has promulgated a final rule 

through a notice-and-comment 

rulemaking process, states have had an 

opportunity to draft and submit SIPs, 

EPA has reviewed the SIPs to determine 

if they can be approved, and EPA has 

taken action on the SIPs, including 

promulgating a FIP if appropriate. The 

Court’s clear instruction to EPA that it 

must continue to administer CAIR until 

a valid replacement exists provides an 

additional backstop: By definition, any 

rule that replaces CAIR and meets the 

Court’s direction would require upwind 

states to have SIPs that eliminate 

significant contributions to downwind 

nonattainment and prevent interference 

with maintenance in downwind areas. 

Further, in vacating CSAPR and 

requiring EPA to continue administering 

CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that 

the consequences of vacating CAIR 

‘‘might be more severe now in light of 

the reliance interests accumulated over 

the intervening four years.’’ EME Homer 

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

reliance interests include the interests of 

states who reasonably assumed they 

could rely on reductions associated with 

CAIR which brought certain 

nonattainment areas into attainment 

with the NAAQS. If EPA were 

prevented from relying on reductions 

associated with CAIR in redesignation 

actions, states would be forced to 

impose additional, redundant 

reductions on top of those achieved by 

CAIR. EPA believes this is precisely the 

type of irrational result the court sought 

to avoid by ordering EPA to continue 

administering CAIR. For these reasons 

also, EPA believes it is appropriate to 

allow states to rely on CAIR, and the 

existing emissions reductions achieved 

by CAIR, as sufficiently permanent and 

enforceable for purposes such as 

redesignation. Following promulgation 

of the replacement rule, EPA will 

review SIPs as appropriate to identify 

whether there are any issues that need 

to be addressed. 

b. Emission Reductions 

Ohio developed annual emissions 

inventories for NOX, primary PM2.5, and 

SO2 for 2005, one of the years the 

Cleveland area monitored 

nonattainment of the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards, and 2008, 

one of the years the area monitored 

attainment of the standards. 

The emission inventories submitted 

by Ohio EPA were developed with the 

assistance of the Lake Michigan Air 

Directors Consortium (LADCO). The 

main purpose of LADCO is to provide 

technical assessments for and assistance 

to its member states on problems of air 

quality. LADCO’s primary geographic 

focus is the area encompassed by its 

member states (Illinois, Indiana, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and 

Wisconsin) and any areas which affect 

air quality in its member states. 

The 2005 nonattainment inventory 

was developed as described below. 

Point source emissions for 2005 were 

compiled by Ohio EPA using source 

specific data reported by facilities 

through the state’s STARShip database 

program. The data are reported by 

facilities annually and include 

emissions, process rates, operating 

schedules, emissions control data and 

other relevant information. Ohio EPA 

quality assured the database files and 

submitted the data to LADCO for 

emissions processing through the 

Emissions Modeling System (EMS). 

LADCO used the Electric Generating 

Unit (EGU) inventory compiled by 

EPA’s Acid Rain Program, based on 

facility reported emissions as measured 

by continuous emissions monitors. 

Area source sector emissions were 

calculated using surrogate emissions 

factors based on energy usage, 

population, employment records, or 

other reliable data. Ohio EPA used 

Emission Inventory improvement 

Program methodologies or selected 

other methodologies which are shared 

by other states. The decision of which 

methodology to use was largely based 

on Ohio’s data availability. 

Nonroad source sector emissions 

estimates were generated using EPA’s 

National Mobile Inventory Model 

(NMIM), with the following 

modifications: Emission factors were 

added for diesel tampers/rammers; the 

PM2.5 ratios in the SCC table were 

revised to correctly calculate PM2.5

diesel emissions; and, gasoline 

parameters, including Reid Vapor 

Pressure (RVP), Oxygenate content and 

sulfur content, were revised using 

updates provided by the state and E.H. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45129 

Pechan and Associates. Marine, aircraft 

and rail nonroad emissions were 

calculated separately. Contractors were 

employed by LADCO to estimate 

emissions for commercial marine 

vessels and railroads. Ohio developed 

aircraft emissions estimates using AP– 

42 emission factors and landing and 

take-off data provided by the Federal 

Aviation Administration. 

Onroad mobile source emissions 

estimates were developed using the 

EPA’s MOVES2010 model. 

The 2008 attainment year inventory 

was developed as follows. Point source 

emissions for 2008 were compiled from 

Ohio’s STARShip database. Onroad 

emissions projections were based on 

EPA’s MOVES2010 model. Area and 

nonroad emissions were grown from the 

2005 inventory using LADCO’s growth 

factors. 

NOX, primary PM2.5, and SO2

emissions data are shown in Table 5 

below. 

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF 2005 AND 2008 NOX, PRIMARY PM2.5, AND SO2 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR IN

TONS PER YEAR (TPY) 

Sector 

2005 2008 Net change 2005–2008 

PM2.5 NOX SO2 PM2.5 NOX SO2 PM2.5 NOX SO2

Point ............................................. 1,916 29,699 147,256 2,003 29,280 111,991 87 ¥419 ¥35,265 

Area .............................................. 2,380 10,419 954 2,433 10,527 945 53 108 ¥9 

Nonroad ....................................... 1,888 29,286 3,154 1,656 26,148 1,828 ¥233 ¥3,138 ¥1,326 

Onroad ......................................... 3,022 86,522 1,854 2,556 69,731 556 ¥466 ¥16,791 ¥1,299 

Total ...................................... 9,206 155,927 153,218 8,648 135,687 115,319 ¥558 ¥20,240 ¥37,899 

Table 5 shows that the Cleveland area 

reduced primary PM2.5, NOX, and SO2

emissions by 558 tpy, 20,240 tpy, and 

37,899 tpy, respectively, between 2005 

and 2008. Based on the information 

summarized above, Ohio has adequately 

demonstrated that the improvement in 

air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions. 

On April 30, 2013, Ohio submitted 

supplemental information regarding 

emissions of VOC and ammonia. This 

information is reviewed below. 

However, EPA believes that the 

improvement in air quality is 

attributable to the PM2.5, NOX, and SO2

emission reductions described above 

and is not significantly affected by any 

changes in VOC or ammonia emissions. 

4. The Area Has a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175A of the CAA (Section 

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

In conjunction with Ohio’s requests to 

redesignate the Cleveland 

nonattainment area to attainment status, 

Ohio EPA submitted SIP revisions to 

provide for maintenance of the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

in the area through 2022. 

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 PM2.5 violations. 

The September 4, 1992, John 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 

The Ohio EPA developed annual 

emissions inventories for NOX, direct 

PM2.5, and SO2 for 2008, one of the years 

the area monitored attainment of the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard, as described in section 

IV.A.3.b. The use of an annual inventory 

is appropriate for both the annual and 

24-hour standard because 24-hour 

exceedances occur in all four quarters. 

The attainment level of emissions is 

summarized in Table 5, above. 

c. Demonstration of Maintenance 

Along with the redesignation 

requests, Ohio EPA submitted revisions 

to the Ohio PM2.5 SIP to include 

maintenance plans for the Cleveland 

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. 

As discussed in detail in the section 

below, Ohio’s maintenance plan 

submissions expressly document that 

the area’s emissions inventories will 

remain below the attainment year 

inventories through 2022. In addition, 

for the reasons set forth below, EPA 

believes that the state’s submissions, in 

conjunction with additional supporting 

information, further demonstrate that 

the area will continue to maintain the 

PM2.5 standard at least through 2023. 

Thus, if EPA finalizes its proposed 

approval of the redesignation requests 

and maintenance plans in 2013, it is 

based on a showing, in accordance with 

section 175A, that the state’s 

maintenance plans provide for 

maintenance for at least ten years after 

redesignation. 

Ohio’s plans demonstrate 

maintenance of the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS through 

2022 by showing that current and future 

emissions of NOX, directly emitted 

PM2.5 and SO2 for the area remain at or 

below attainment year emission levels. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45130 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

A maintenance demonstration need not 

be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 

265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See 

also 66 FR 53094, 53099–53100 

(October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430– 

25432 (May 12, 2003). As discussed 

below, a comparison of current and 

future emissions inventories for VOC 

and ammonia show significant 

reductions in VOC emissions and 

relatively constant emissions of 

ammonia, which further support a 

finding that the area will continue to 

maintain the standard. 

For NOX, directly emitted PM2.5, and 

SO2, Ohio is using emissions inventory 

projections for the years 2015 and 2022 

to demonstrate maintenance. The 

projected emissions were estimated by 

Ohio EPA, with assistance from LADCO, 

The Ohio Department of Transportation 

(ODOT) and the Northeast Ohio 

Areawide Coordinating Agency 

(NOACA). 

LADCO has developed growth and 

control files for point, area and nonroad 

categories. These files were used along 

with LADCO’s 2009 and 2018 emission 

inventories to develop the 2015 and 

2022 emissions estimates. NOACA and 

ODOT developed onroad emissions 

projections using the MOVES model. 

As discussed in section IV.3.a. above, 

many of the control programs that 

helped to bring the area into attainment 

of the standard will continue to achieve 

additional emission reductions over the 

maintenance period. These control 

programs include Tier 2 emission 

standards for vehicles and gasoline 

sulfur standards, the heavy-duty diesel 

engine rule, the nonroad diesel rule, and 

the nonroad large spark-ignition engine 

and recreation engine standards. In 

addition, implementation of CAIR was 

assumed in the projections. Emissions 

data for all sources by source sector are 

shown in Tables 6 through 8, below. 

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

CLEVELAND AREA

Sector 2008 2015 Net change 

2008–2015 2022 Net change 2008–2022 

Point ..................................................................................... 29,280 26,285 ¥2,995 24,921 ¥4,359 

Area ...................................................................................... 10,527 10,612 84 10,705 178 

Nonroad ............................................................................... 26,148 17,479 ¥8,669 9,156 ¥16,992 

Onroad ................................................................................. 69,731 30,517 ¥39,214 15,012 ¥54,719 

Total .............................................................................. 135,687 84,892 ¥50,795 59,794 ¥75,893 

TABLE 7—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015, AND 2022 DIRECT PM2.5 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE

CLEVELAND AREA

2008 2015 Net change 

2008–2015 2022 Net change 2008–2022 

Point ..................................................................................... 2,003 2,111 108 2,242 239 

Area ...................................................................................... 2,433 2,421 ¥12 2,417 ¥16 

Nonroad ............................................................................... 1,656 1,187 ¥469 711 ¥944 

Onroad ................................................................................. 2,556 1,192 ¥1,364 766 ¥1,790 

Total .............................................................................. 8,648 6,911 ¥1,737 6,136 ¥2,512 

TABLE 8—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015, AND 2022 SO2 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE

CLEVELAND AREA

Sector 2008 2015 Net change 

2008–2015 2022 Net change 2008–2022 

Point ..................................................................................... 111,991 85,877 ¥26,114 57,024 ¥54,967 

Area ...................................................................................... 945 916 ¥28 888 ¥56 

Nonroad ............................................................................... 1,828 887 ¥940 409 ¥1,419 

Onroad ................................................................................. 556 185 ¥371 164 ¥392 

Total .............................................................................. 115,319 87,866 ¥27,453 58,486 ¥56,834 

Tables 6–8 show that emissions of 

NOX, direct PM2.5, and SO2 are 

projected to decrease by 50,795 tpy, 

1,737 tpy, and 27,453 tpy, respectively, 

between 2008 and 2015. In addition, 

Tables 6–8 show that emissions of NOX, 

direct PM2.5, and SO2 are projected to 

decrease by 75,893 tpy, 2,512 tpy, and 

56,834 tpy, respectively, between 2008 

and 2022. 

The rate of decline in emissions of 

PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 from the 

attainment year 2008 through 2022 

indicates that emissions inventory 

levels not only significantly decline 

between 2008 and 2022, but that the 

reductions will continue in 2023 and 

beyond. The average annual rate of 

decline is 7,256 tpy for NOX, 179 tpy for 

direct PM2.5, and 4,060 tpy for SO2. 

These rates of decline are consistent 

with monitored and projected air 

quality trends, emissions reductions 

achieved through emissions controls 

and regulations that will remain in 

place beyond 2023. Furthermore, fleet 

turnover in onroad and nonroad 

vehicles that will continue to occur after 

2022 will continue to provide additional 

significant emission reductions. 

In addition, as Tables 2 and 4 

demonstrate, monitored PM2.5 design 

value concentrations in the Cleveland 

area are well below the NAAQS in the 

years beyond 2008, an attainment year 

for the area. Further, those values are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45131 

12These emissions estimates were taken from the 

emissions inventories developed for the RIA for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

trending downward as time progresses. 

Based on the future projections of 

emissions in 2015 and 2022 showing 

significant emissions reductions in 

direct PM2.5, NOX, and SO2, it is very 

unlikely that monitored PM2.5 values in 

2023 and beyond will show violations 

of the NAAQS. Additionally, the 2010– 

2012 design values of 13.0 and 30 mg/ 

m3 (for the annual and the 24-hour 

standards, respectively) provide a 

sufficient margin in the unlikely event 

emissions rise slightly in the future. 

Based on the information summarized 

above, Ohio has adequately 

demonstrated maintenance of the PM2.5

standard for a period extending ten 

years from the date that EPA may be 

expected to complete rulemaking on the 

state’s redesignation request. 

d. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of 

Precursors 

After evaluating the effect of the 

Court’s remand of EPA’s 

implementation rule, a rule that 

included presumptions against 

consideration of VOC and ammonia as 

PM2.5 precursors, EPA in this proposal 

is also considering the impact of the 

decision on the maintenance plans 

required under sections 175A and 

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

notes that the area has attained the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards and that the state has shown 

that attainment of that standard is due 

to permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions. 

Based on its review of Ohio’s 

maintenance plan and related 

information, EPA believes that the 

primary influences on future air quality 

in the Cleveland area will be emissions 

of NOX, directly emitted PM2.5, and SO2. 

EPA therefore proposes to determine 

that the state’s maintenance plans show 

continued maintenance of the standards 

by tracking the levels of the pollutants 

whose control brought about attainment 

of the PM2.5 standards in the Cleveland 

area. Nevertheless, pursuant to the 

Court’s January 4, 2013, decision, EPA 

is further assessing the potential role of 

VOC and ammonia in achieving 

continued maintenance in this area. As 

explained below, based upon 

documentation provided by the state 

and supporting information, EPA 

believes that the prospective trends in 

emissions of VOC and ammonia are 

consistent with a finding of continued 

maintenance of the standards in the 

Cleveland area. 

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 Cleveland 

area are relatively low, estimated to be 

less than 13,200 tons per year. See Table 

9 below. This amount of ammonia 

emissions is small in comparison to the 

total amounts of SO2, NOX, and even 

direct PM2.5 emissions from sources in 

the area. Third, as described below, 

NOX, SO2, direct PM2.5 and VOC 

emissions are expected to decrease over 

the maintenance period, and ammonia 

emissions are projected to increase only 

slightly. Thus, future emissions levels 

are not expected to interfere with or 

undermine the state’s maintenance 

demonstrations. 

Ohio’s maintenance plans show that 

emissions of NOX, direct PM2.5, and SO2

are projected to decrease by 75,893 tpy, 

2,512 tpy, and 56,834 tpy, respectively, 

over the maintenance period. See Tables 

6–8 above. In addition, emissions 

inventories used in the regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS show that VOC emissions are 

projected to decrease by 32,376 tpy, 

with ammonia emissions increasing by 

only 93 tpy. While the RIA emissions 

inventories are only projected out to 

2020, there is no reason to believe that 

these trends would not continue 

through 2023. 

Given that the Cleveland area is 

already attaining the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, even with 

the current level of emissions from 

sources in the area, the overall 

downward trend in emissions would be 

consistent with continued attainment. 

Indeed, projected emissions reductions 

for the precursors that the state is 

addressing for purposes of the PM2.5

NAAQS indicate that the area should 

continue to attain the NAAQS following 

the precursor control strategy that the 

state has already elected to pursue. Even 

if VOC and ammonia emissions were to 

increase unexpectedly between 2020 

and 2025, the overall emissions 

reductions projected in direct PM2.5, 

SO2, and NOX would be sufficient to 

offset any increases. For these reasons, 

EPA believes that local emissions of all 

of the potential PM2.5 precursors will 

not increase to the extent that they will 

cause monitored PM2.5 levels to violate 

the 1997 annual or 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards during the maintenance 

period. 

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

CLEVELAND AREA 12

Sector 

VOC Ammonia 

2007 2020 Net change 

2007–2020 2007 2020 Net change 2007–2020 

Point ......................................................... 7,205 7,122 ¥83 31 165 134 

Area .......................................................... 35,944 36,222 278 11,803 12,336 533 

Nonroad ................................................... 28,017 13,362 ¥14,655 23 25 3 

Onroad ..................................................... 29,558 11,642 ¥17,917 1,234 657 ¥576 

Total .................................................. 100,724 68,348 ¥32,376 13,090 13,184 93 

In addition, available air quality 

modeling analyses show continued 

maintenance of the 1997 annual 

standard during the maintenance 

period. Based on 2010–2012 air quality 

data, the current design values for the 

area is 13.0 mg/m3, which is well below 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 mg/ 

m3. Moreover, the modeling analysis 

conducted for the RIA for the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS indicates that the annual 

design value for this area is expected to 

continue to decline through 2020. In the 

RIA analysis, the 2020 modeled annual 

design value for the Cleveland area is 

10.7 mg/m3. Given that overall precursor 

emissions are projected to decrease 

through 2022, it is reasonable to 

conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels in 

this area will also continue to decrease 

through the maintenance period. 

Thus, EPA believes that there is 

ample justification to conclude that the 

Cleveland area maintenance plans 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45132 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

should be approved, even taking into 

consideration the emissions of other 

precursors potentially relevant to PM2.5. 

After consideration of the D.C. Circuit’s 

January 4, 2013, decision, and for the 

reasons set forth in this notice, EPA 

proposes to approve the state’s 

maintenance plans. 

e. Monitoring Network 

Ohio currently operates twelve 

monitors for purposes of determining 

attainment with the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard in the 

Cleveland area. Ohio EPA has 

committed to continue to operate and 

maintain these monitors and will 

consult with EPA prior to making any 

changes to the existing monitoring 

network. Ohio EPA remains obligated to 

continue to quality assure monitoring 

data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 

and enter all data into the AQS in 

accordance with Federal guidelines. 

f. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Continued attainment of the PM2.5

NAAQS in the Cleveland area depends, 

in part, on the state’s efforts toward 

tracking indicators of continued 

attainment during the maintenance 

period. Ohio’s plans for verifying 

continued attainment of the 1997 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards in 

the Cleveland area consists of continued 

ambient PM2.5 monitoring in accordance 

with the requirements of 40 CFR part 

58. Ohio EPA will also continue to 

develop and submit periodic emission 

inventories as required by the Federal 

Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule 

(codified at 40 CFR part 51 Subpart A) 

to track future levels of emissions. 

g. 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 ensure that the 

state will promptly correct a violation of 

the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the contingency 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation of the contingency 

measures, and a time limit for action by 

the state. The state should also identify 

specific indicators to be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be adopted and 

implemented. The maintenance plan 

must include a requirement that the 

state will implement all measures with 

respect to control of the pollutant(s) that 

were contained in the SIP before 

redesignation of the area to attainment. 

See section 175A(d) of the CAA. 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, Ohio has adopted contingency 

plans for the Cleveland area to address 

possible future 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 air quality problems. 

Ohio’s contingency plans include 

Warning Level Responses and Action 

Level Responses. An initial Warning 

Level Response is triggered when either 

1) the weighted annual mean is equal to 

or greater than 15.5 mg/m3 within the 

maintenance area in a single calendar 

year or 2) a 98th percentile 24-hour 

PM2.5 concentration of 35.5 mg/m3 or 

greater occurs within a single year in the 

maintenance area. If a Warning Level 

Response is triggered, a study will be 

conducted to determine whether 

emissions appear to be increasing; 

whether the trend, if any, is likely to 

continue; and, if so what control 

measures are necessary to reverse the 

trend. Should it be determined through 

the warning level study that action is 

necessary to reverse the noted trend, 

Ohio will follow the same procedures 

for control selection and 

implementation as for an Action Level 

Response. 

An Action Level Response will be 

prompted by any one of the following: 

A two year average of the weighted 

annual means of 15.0 mg/m3 or greater; 

a violation of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard; a two year average of the 98th 

percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentration 

of 35.0 mg/m3 or greater; or, a violation 

of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. If an 

Action Level Response is triggered, 

Ohio EPA will determine what 

additional control measures are needed 

to assure future attainment of the PM2.5

standards. Selected measures are to be 

in place within 18 months from the 

close of the calendar year that prompted 

the action level. Ohio EPA will 

determine if significant new regulations 

not currently included as part of the 

maintenance provisions will be 

implemented in a timely manner so as 

to constitute the state’s response. If such 

a determination is made, Ohio will 

submit to EPA an analysis to 

demonstrate the proposed measures are 

adequate to return the area to 

attainment. Ohio EPA included the 

following list of potential contingency 

measures: 

i. Diesel reduction emission strategies; 

ii. Alternative fuel (e.g., liquid propane and 

compressed natural gas) and diesel retrofit 

programs for fleet vehicle operations; 

iii. Tighter NOX, SO2, or PM2.5 emissions 

offsets for new and modified major sources; 

iv. Impact crushers located at recycle scrap 

yards—upgrade wet suppression; 

v. Concrete manufacturing—upgrade wet 

suppression; and, 

vi. Additional NOX RACT statewide. 

EPA believes that Ohio’s contingency 

plan satisfies the pertinent requirements 

of section 175A(d). 

h. Provisions for Future Updates of the 

Annual PM2.5 Maintenance Plan 

As required by section 175A(b) of the 

CAA, Ohio commits to submit to EPA 

updated maintenance plans eight years 

after redesignation of the Cleveland area 

to attainment of the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards to cover 

an additional ten-year period beyond 

the initial ten year maintenance period. 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, Ohio has committed to retain the 

control measures contained in the SIP 

prior to redesignation, and to submit to 

EPA for approval as a SIP revision, any 

changes to its rules or emission limits 

applicable to SO2, NOX, or direct PM2.5

sources as required for maintenance of 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard in the Cleveland area. 

EPA has concluded that the 

maintenance plan adequately addresses 

the five basic components of a 

maintenance plan: Attainment 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring network, verification of 

continued attainment, and a 

contingency plan. 

B. Comprehensive Emissions Inventories 

As discussed above in section 

IV.A.2.a.ii., section 173(c)(3) of the CAA 

requires areas to submit a 

comprehensive, accurate and current 

emissions inventory. As part of the 

redesignation request, Ohio submitted 

2005 and 2008 emissions inventories for 

NOX, primary PM2.5, and SO2. These 

emissions inventories are discussed in 

section IV.A.3.b., above, and the data 

are shown in Table 5. 

On April 30, 2013, Ohio submitted 

2007/2008 ammonia and VOC emissions 

inventories to supplement the 

comprehensive emissions inventories 

submitted as part of the redesignation 

requests. These emissions inventories 

were developed by LADCO, in 

conjunction with its member states, as 

described below. 

To generate point source emissions 

estimates, LADCO ran the EMS model 

using STARShip data provided by Ohio. 

For area sources, LADCO ran the EMS 

model using the 2008 National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) data 

provided by Ohio. LADCO followed 

Eastern Regional Technical Advisory 

Committee (ERTAC) recommendations 

on area sources when preparing the 

data. Agricultural ammonia emissions 

were not taken from NEI; instead 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45133 

emissions were based on Carnegie 

Mellon University’s Ammonia Emission 

Inventory for the Continental United 

States (CMU). Specifically, the CMU 

2002 annual emissions were grown to 

reflect 2007 conditions. A process-based 

ammonia emissions model developed 

for LADCO was then used to develop 

temporal factors to reflect the impact of 

average meteorology on livestock 

emissions. 

Onroad mobile source emissions were 

generated using EPA’s MOVES2010a 

emissions model. Nonroad mobile 

source emissions were generated using 

the NMIM2008 emissions model. 

LADCO also accounted for three other 

nonroad categories not covered by the 

NMIM model: Commercial marine 

vessels, aircraft, and railroads. Marine 

emissions were based on reports 

prepared by Environ entitled ‘‘LADCO 

Nonroad Emissions Inventory Project for 

Locomotive, Commercial Marine, and 

Recreational Marine Emission Sources, 

Final Report, December 2004’’ and 

‘‘LADCO 2005 Commercial Marine 

Emissions, Draft, March 2, 2007.’’ 

Aircraft emissions were provided by 

Ohio and calculated using AP–42 

emission factors and landing and takeoff data provided by the Federal 

Aviation Administration. Rail emissions 

were based on the 2008 inventory 

developed by ERTAC. 

EPA notes that the emissions 

inventory developed by LADCO is 

documented in ‘‘Regional Air Quality 

Analyses for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional 

Haze: Base C Emissions Inventory’’ 

(September 12, 2011). Ammonia and 

VOC emissions data are shown in Table 

10 below. 

TABLE 10—2007/2008 VOC AND AMMONIA EMISSION TOTALS FOR THE

CLEVELAND AREA BY SOURCE SECTOR

[tpy] 

Sector Ammonia VOC 

Point .......................... 65 6,627 

Area .......................... 13,329 36,530 

Nonroad .................... 23 27,721 

Onroad ...................... 1,384 29,285 

Total ................... 14,801 100,163 

EPA has concluded that the emissions 

inventories provided by the state are 

complete and as accurate as possible 

given the input data available for the 

relevant source categories. EPA also 

believes that these inventories provide 

information about VOC and ammonia as 

PM2.5 precursors in the context of 

evaluating redesignation of the 

Cleveland area under subpart 4. 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the 2007/2008 ammonia and VOC 

emissions inventories submitted by the 

state, in conjunction with the 2005 and 

2008 NOX, direct PM2.5, and SO2

emissions inventories, as fully meeting 

the comprehensive inventory 

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

CAA for the Cleveland area for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards. 

C. Ohio’s MVEBs 

1. How are MVEBs developed? 

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 onroad mobile source 

emissions for criteria pollutants and/or 

their precursors to address pollution 

from onroad transportation sources. The 

MVEBs are the portions of the total 

allowable emissions that are allocated to 

highway and transit vehicle use that, 

together with emissions from other 

sources in the area, will provide for 

attainment, RFP or maintenance, as 

applicable. 

Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an 

area seeking a redesignation to 

attainment is established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. 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, 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs (TIPs) must be 

evaluated to determine if they conform 

with 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’’ or 

approve for use in determining 

transportation conformity before the 

MVEBs can be used. Once EPA 

affirmatively approves 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 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 plan, and conclude that 

the SIP will achieve its overall purpose, 

in this case providing for maintenance 

of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. 

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. 

2. 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 6, NOX emissions in the 

Cleveland area are projected to have 

safety margins of 50,795 tpy and 75,893 

tpy in 2015 and 2022, respectively (the 

difference between the attainment year, 

2008, emissions and the projected 2015 

and 2022 emissions for all sources in 

the Cleveland area). Table 7 shows 

direct PM2.5 emissions in the Cleveland 

area are projected to have safety margins 

of 1,737 tpy and 2,512 tpy in 2015 and 

2022, respectively. Even if emissions 

reached the full level of the safety 

margin, the area would still demonstrate 

maintenance since emission levels 

would equal those in the attainment 

year. 

The transportation conformity rule 

allows areas to allocate all or a portion 

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

vehicle emissions budgets. (40 CFR 

93.124(a)) 

3. What are the MVEBs for the 

Cleveland area? 

The maintenance plans submitted by 

Ohio for the Cleveland area contain 

primary PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the 

area for the years 2015 and 2022. Ohio 

EPA has determined the 2015 MVEBs 

for the Cleveland area to be 1,371.35 tpy 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45134 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

13The 2004 rulemaking addressed most of the 

transportation conformity requirements that apply 

in PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas. The 

2005 conformity rule included provisions 

addressing treatment of PM2.5 precursors in MVEBs. 

See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2). While none of these 

provisions were challenged in the NRDC case, EPA 

also notes that the Court declined to address 

challenges to EPA’s presumptions regarding PM2.5

precursors in the PM2.5 implementation rule. NRDC 

v. EPA, at 27, n. 10. 

for primary PM2.5 and 35,094.70 tpy for 

NOX. Ohio EPA has determined the 

2022 MVEBs for the Cleveland area to 

be 880.89 tpy for primary PM2.5 and 

17,263.65 tpy for NOX. Ohio EPA 

allocated 178.87 tpy and 4,477.57 tpy to 

the 2015 primary PM2.5 and NOX

MVEBs, respectively, to provide for 

mobile source growth. Similarly, Ohio 

EPA allocated 114.90 tpy and 2,251.78 

tpy to the 2022 primary PM2.5 and NOX

MVEBs, respectively. 

The transportation conformity rule 

allows areas to allocate all or a portion 

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

vehicle emissions budgets. (40 CFR 

93.124(a)) 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 has 

submitted MVEBs that exceed the 

projected onroad mobile source 

emissions for 2015 and 2022 contained 

in the demonstration of maintenance, 

the increase in onroad mobile source 

emissions that can be considered for 

transportation conformity purposes is 

well within the safety margins of the 

PM2.5 maintenance demonstration. 

Further, once allocated to mobile 

sources, these safety margins will not be 

available for use by other sources. 

Ohio did not provide emission 

budgets for SO2, VOCs, and ammonia 

because it concluded, consistent with 

the presumptions regarding these 

precursors in the conformity rule at 40 

CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), which predated 

and was not disturbed by the litigation 

on the PM2.5 implementation rule, that 

emissions of these precursors from 

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 

Cleveland area MVEBs. 

First, as noted above, EPA’s 

conformity rule implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS was a separate action 

from the overall PM2.5 implementation 

rule addressed by the Court and was not 

considered or disturbed by the decision. 

Therefore, the conformity regulations 

were not at issue in NRDC v. EPA.13 In 

addition, as discussed in section III.B., 

the Cleveland area is attaining the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour standards for 

PM2.5 with 2010–2012 design values of 

13.0 mg/m3 and 30 mg/m3, respectively, 

which are well below the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 mg/m3 and the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 mg/m3. The 

modeling analysis conducted for the 

RIA for the 2012 PM NAAQS indicates 

that the design value for this area is 

expected to continue to decline through 

2020. Further, the state’s maintenance 

plan shows continued maintenance 

through 2022 by demonstrating that 

NOX, SO2, and direct PM2.5 emissions 

continue to decrease through the 

maintenance period. For VOC and 

ammonia, RIA inventories for 2007 and 

2020 show that both onroad and total 

emissions for these pollutants are 

expected to decrease, supporting the 

state’s conclusion, consistent with the 

presumptions regarding these 

precursors in the conformity rule, that 

emissions of these precursors from 

motor vehicles are not significant 

contributors to the area’s PM2.5 air 

quality problem and the MVEBs for 

these precursors are unnecessary. With 

regard to SO2, the 2005 final conformity 

rule (70 FR 24280) based its 

presumption concerning onroad SO2

motor vehicle emissions budgets on 

emissions inventories that show that 

SO2 emissions from onroad sources 

constitute a ‘‘de minimis’’ portion of 

total SO2 emissions. As can be seen 

from the data presented in Table 8, 

onroad emissions in 2022 are less than 

0.3% of total SO2 emissions in the area. 

In addition, onroad SO2 emissions 

decrease throughout the maintenance 

period. 

The availability of the SIP 

submissions with these 2015 and 2022 

MVEBs was announced for public 

comment on EPA’s Adequacy Web site 

on October 6, 2011, for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard and August 9, 2012, for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, at: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. 

The EPA public comment periods on 

adequacy of the 2015 and 2022 MVEBs 

for the Cleveland area closed on 

November 7, 2011, and September 10, 

2012, for the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standards, respectively. No 

adverse comments on the submittals 

were received during the adequacy 

comment period. 

EPA has reviewed the submitted 

budgets for 2015 and 2022, 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 determined that the 

area can maintain attainment of the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS for the relevant maintenance 

period with onroad mobile source 

emissions at the levels of the MVEBs 

since total emissions will still remain 

under attainment year emission levels. 

EPA is therefore finding adequate and 

proposing to approve the MVEBs 

submitted by Ohio EPA for use in 

determining transportation conformity 

in the Cleveland area. 

V. Summary of Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Cleveland area is attaining the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards and that the area has met the 

requirements for redesignation under 

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

thus proposing to approve the requests 

from Ohio EPA to change the legal 

designations of the Cleveland area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards. EPA is proposing to approve 

Ohio’s PM2.5 maintenance plans for the 

Cleveland area as revisions to the Ohio 

SIP because the plans meet the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA. EPA is proposing to approve 2005 

and 2008 emissions inventories for 

primary PM2.5, NOX, and SO2, and 2007/ 

2008 emissions inventories for VOC and 

ammonia as satisfying the requirement 

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

comprehensive, current emission 

inventory. Finally, EPA finds adequate 

and is proposing to approve 2015 and 

2022 primary PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for 

the Cleveland area. These MVEBs will 

be used in future transportation 

conformity analyses for the area. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

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

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 45135 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed 

actions do not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law and the CAA. For that reason, 

these proposed actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

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

• are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because a 

determination of attainment is an action 

that affects the status of a geographical 

area and does not impose any new 

regulatory requirements on tribes, 

impact any existing sources of air 

pollution on tribal lands, nor impair the 

maintenance of ozone national ambient 

air quality standards in tribal lands. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: July 12, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18028 Filed 7–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0596; FRL–9837–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

Redesignation of the DaytonSpringfield Area to Attainment of the 

1997 Annual Standard for Fine 

Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State of Ohio’s request to 

redesignate the Dayton-Springfield 

nonattainment area (Dayton) to 

attainment for the 1997 annual National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS or standard) for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5). EPA is also 

proposing to approve the related 

elements including emissions 

inventories, maintenance plans, and the 

accompanying motor vehicle budgets. 

EPA is proposing to approve a 

comprehensive emissions inventory that 

meets the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirement. EPA is proposing that the 

inventories for nitrogen oxides (NOX), 

direct PM2.5, sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

ammonia, and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) meet the CAA 

emissions inventory requirement. In the 

course of proposing to approve Ohio’s 

request to redesignate the Dayton 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): (1) The Court’s 

August 21, 2012, decision to vacate and 

remand to EPA the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Control Rule (CSAPR) and (2) 

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 August 26, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0596, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, 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–2011– 

0596. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS