Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44487 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this notice 

will be posted at http://www.epa.gov/ 

air/ozonepollution/actions.html#impl. 

Dated: July 17, 2013. 

Mary E. Henigin, 

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17830 Filed 7–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0368; FRL–9836–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; West 

Virginia; Redesignation of the West 

Virginia Portion of the Wheeling, WV– 

OH 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment and 

Approval of the Associated 

Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental. 

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a supplement 

to its proposed approval of the State of 

West Virginia’s request to redesignate 

the West Virginia portion of the 

Wheeling, WV–OH fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area 

(Wheeling Area or Area) to attainment 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

This supplemental proposal revises and 

expands the basis for proposing 

approval of the State’s request in light 

of developments since EPA issued its 

initial proposal on December 11, 2012. 

This supplemental proposal addresses 

the effects of the decision of the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia (D.C. Circuit Court) on 

January 4, 2013 to remand to EPA two 

final rules implementing the PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA is seeking comment only 

on the issues raised in this 

supplemental proposal and is not 

reopening for comment other issues 

raised in its prior proposal. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 23, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2012–0368 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0368, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2012– 

0368. 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. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 

57th Street SE., Charleston, West 

Virginia 25304. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose 

Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by email at 

quinto.rose@epa.gov. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

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

Decision Regarding the PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 

A. Background 

B. Supplemental Proposal on This Issue 

1. Applicable Requirements for Purposes of 

Evaluating the Redesignation Request 

2. Subpart 4 Requirements and Wheeling 

Area’s Redesignation Request 

3. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

4. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of 

Precursors 

III. Ammonia and VOC Comprehensive 

Emissions Inventory 

IV. Summary of Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On March 8, 2012, the State of West 

Virginia through the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(WVDEP) formally submitted a request 

to redesignate the West Virginia portion 

of the Wheeling Area from 

nonattainment to attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Concurrently, 

West Virginia submitted a maintenance 

plan for the Area as a SIP revision to 

ensure continued attainment throughout 

the Area over the next 10 years. 

On December 11, 2012 (77 FR 73575), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) determining that the 

Wheeling Area has attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS and that the Area 

has met the requirements for 

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

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In the 

December 11, 2012 NPR, EPA proposed 

several actions related to the 

redesignation of the Area to attainment 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. First, 

EPA proposed to approve West 

Virginia’s request to change the legal 

definition of the West Virginia portion 

of the Wheeling Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44488 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 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. 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Second, 

EPA proposed to approve the 

maintenance plan for the West Virginia 

portion of the Area as a revision to the 

West Virginia SIP because the plan 

meets the requirements of section 175A 

of the CAA. Third, EPA proposed to 

approve the insignificance 

determination for the onroad motor 

vehicle contribution of PM2.5, nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

in the West Virginia portion of the Area 

for transportation conformity purposes. 

Fourth, EPA proposed to approve the 

base year emissions inventory for PM2.5

(including condensables), SO2 and NOX

emissions. The emissions cover the 

general source categories of point 

sources, area sources, onroad mobile 

sources and nonroad mobile sources. 

EPA received no comments in response 

to the December 11, 2012 NPR 

proposing approval of the above 

described redesignation request, 

maintenance plan, insignificance 

determination and the base year 

emissions inventory. EPA is not 

reopening the public comment period to 

submit comment on the issues 

addressed in the December 11, 2012 

NPR. 

EPA today is issuing a supplement to 

its December 11, 2012 NPR. This 

supplemental NPR addresses the recent 

decision of the D.C. Circuit Court which 

affects the proposed redesignation and 

which has arisen since the issuance of 

the NPR. The D.C. Circuit Court on 

January 4, 2013 remanded to EPA two 

final rules implementing the PM2.5

NAAQS. Therefore, EPA’s supplemental 

proposal revises and expands the basis 

for EPA’s proposed approval of West 

Virginia’s request to redesignate the 

Wheeling Area to attainment for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, in light of 

this development since EPA’s initial 

NPR. 

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

Circuit Decision Regarding the PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 

A. Background 

On January 4, 2013, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the 

D.C. Circuit Court 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 D.C. Circuit 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-matterspecific provisions of subpart 4 of Part 

D of Title I. 

B. Supplemental Proposal on This Issue 

In this portion of EPA’s supplemental 

proposal, EPA is soliciting comment on 

the limited issue of the effect of the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 ruling on 

the proposed redesignation. As 

explained below, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the D.C. Circuit Court’s 

January 4, 2013 decision does not 

prevent EPA from redesignating the 

Wheeling Area to attainment. Even in 

light of the D.C. Circuit 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 Wheeling Area redesignation 

request and disregards the provisions of 

its 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule 

recently remanded by the D.C. Circuit 

Court, the State’s request for 

redesignation of this Area still qualifies 

for approval. EPA’s discussion takes 

into account the effect of the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s ruling on the Area’s 

maintenance plan, which EPA views as 

approvable when subpart 4 

requirements are considered. 

1. Applicable Requirements for 

Purposes of Evaluating the 

Redesignation Request 

With respect to the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the D.C. Circuit 

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 West Virginia’s redesignation 

request for the Wheeling 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 section 107(d)(3)(E) of 

the CAA, and thus EPA is not required 

to consider subpart 4 requirements with 

respect to the Wheeling Area 

redesignation. Under its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA, EPA has 

interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, 

as a threshold matter, that the part D 

provisions which are ‘‘applicable’’ and 

which must be approved in order for 

EPA to redesignate an area include only 

those which came due prior to a state’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992 (Calcagni memorandum). See also 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993 (Shapiro 

memorandum); Final Redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 

12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final 

Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 

FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003); 

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

(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation and expressly rejecting 

Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of 

‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is 

‘‘whatever should have been in the plan 

at the time of attainment rather than 

whatever actually was in the plan and 

already implemented or due at the time 

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

that West Virginia submitted its 

redesignation request, requirements 

under subpart 4 were not due, and 

indeed, were not yet known to apply. 

EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the Wheeling Area 

redesignation, the subpart 4 

requirements were not due at the time 

West Virginia submitted the 

redesignation request is in keeping with 

the EPA’s interpretation of subpart 2 

requirements for subpart 1 ozone areas 

redesignated subsequent to the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s decision in South Coast 

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

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

D.C Circuit 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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44489 

2Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and 

distinguished in a recent D.C. Circuit Court 

decision that addressed retroactivity in a quite 

different context, where, unlike the situation here, 

EPA sought to give its regulations retroactive effect. 

National Petrochemical and Refiners Ass’n v. EPA. 

630 F.3d 145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing denied 

643 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. 

Ct. 571 (2011). 

3PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 

micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

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) of the CAA. 

EPA’s interpretation derives from the 

provisions of section 107(d)(3) of the 

CAA. 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 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) of the CAA. 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 the Wheeling 

redesignation, the timing and nature of 

the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision in NRDC v. EPA compound the 

consequences of imposing requirements 

that come due after the redesignation 

request is submitted. West Virginia 

submitted its redesignation request on 

March 8, 2012, but the D.C. Circuit 

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 West Virginia’s fullycompleted and long-pending 

redesignation request to comply now 

with requirements of subpart 4 that the 

D.C. Circuit Court announced only on 

January 4, 2013, would be to give 

retroactive effect to such requirements 

when the State had no notice that it was 

required to meet them. The D.C. Circuit 

Court 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 D.C. 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 D.C. Circuit 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 D.C. Circuit 

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 West Virginia 

by rejecting its redesignation request for 

an area that is already attaining the 1997 

PM2.5 standard and that met all 

applicable requirements known to be in 

effect at the time of the request. For EPA 

now to reject the redesignation request 

solely because the state did not 

expressly address subpart 4 

requirements of which it had no notice, 

would inflict the same unfairness 

condemned by the D.C. Circuit Court in 

Sierra Club v. Whitman. 

2. Subpart 4 Requirements and 

Wheeling Area’s Redesignation Request 

Even if EPA were to take the view that 

the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision requires that, in the context of 

pending redesignations, subpart 4 

requirements were due and in effect at 

the time the State submitted its 

redesignation request, EPA proposes to 

determine that the Wheeling Area still 

qualifies for redesignation to attainment. 

As explained below, EPA believes that 

the redesignation request for the 

Wheeling 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 Wheeling Area, EPA notes that 

subpart 4 incorporates components of 

subpart 1 of part D, which contains 

general air quality planning 

requirements for areas designated as 

nonattainment. See Section 172(c). 

Subpart 4 itself contains specific 

planning and scheduling requirements 

for PM10 3 nonattainment areas, and 

under the D.C. Circuit 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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44490 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision should be interpreted so as to impose these 

requirements on the states retroactively. Sierra Club 

v. Whitman, supra. 

SIP requirements, and pointed out that 

subpart 1 requirements were to an 

extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally 

related to, the more specific PM10

requirements.’’ (57 FR 13538, April 16, 

1992). EPA’s December 11, 2012 NPR 

for this redesignation action addressed 

how the Wheeling Area meets the 

requirements for redesignation under 

subpart 1. These subpart 1 requirements 

include, among other things, provisions 

for attainment demonstrations, 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), reasonable further progress 

(RFP), emissions inventories, and 

contingency measures. 

For the purposes of this redesignation, 

in order to identify any additional 

requirements which would apply under 

subpart 4, EPA is considering the 

Wheeling 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 prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) program after redesignation. A 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ See also 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). 

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.’’ See 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 D.C. Circuit 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 PM2.5

standard, for the purpose of evaluating 

a pending request to redesignate the 

area to attainment. EPA has consistently 

enunciated this interpretation of 

applicable requirements under section 

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

In its December 11, 2012 NPR for this 

action, EPA proposed to determine that 

the Wheeling Area has attained the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS and therefore meets the 

attainment-related plan requirements of 

subpart 1. Under its longstanding 

interpretation, EPA is proposing to 

determine here that the Area also meets 

the attainment-related plan 

requirements of subpart 4. 

Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude 

that the requirements to submit an 

attainment demonstration under 

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

under section 172(c)(1) and section 

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

under 189(c)(1) are satisfied for 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44491 

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 Wheeling Area has reduced VOC emissions 

through the implementation of various control 

programs including VOC Reasonably Available 

Control Technology regulations (45CSR21) and 

various on-road and non-road motor vehicle control 

programs. 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request. 

3. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

The D.C. Circuit Court in NRDC v. 

EPA remanded to EPA the two rules at 

issue in the case with instructions to 

EPA to re-promulgate them consistent 

with the requirements of subpart 4. The 

D.C. Circuit Court’s opinion raises the 

issue of the appropriate approach to 

addressing PM2.5 precursors in this and 

future EPA actions. While past 

implementation of subpart 4 for PM10

has allowed for control of PM10

precursors such as NOX from major 

stationary, mobile, and area sources in 

order to attain the standard as 

expeditiously as practicable, CAA 

section 189(e) specifically provides that 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10 shall 

also apply to PM10 precursors from 

those sources, except where EPA 

determines that major stationary sources 

of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels which 

exceed the standard in the area.’’ 

EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit 

Court, 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 NH3] as . . . PM2.5

attainment plan precursor[s] and to 

evaluate sources of VOC [and NH3] 

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 NH3

and VOC in specific areas where that 

was necessary. 

The D.C. Circuit 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 D.C. Circuit Court’s 

opinion, however, the Court observed: 

‘‘NH3 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 

Wheeling Area is consistent with the 

D.C. Circuit Court’s decision on this 

aspect of subpart 4. First, while the D.C. 

Circuit Court, citing section 189(e), 

stated that ‘‘for a PM10 area governed by 

subpart 4, a precursor is ‘presumptively 

regulated,’ ’’ the D.C. Circuit Court 

expressly declined to decide the specific 

challenge to EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule provisions 

regarding NH3 and VOC as precursors. 

The D.C. Circuit Court had no occasion 

to reach whether and how it was 

substantively necessary to regulate any 

specific precursor in a particular PM2.5

nonattainment area, and did not address 

what might be necessary for purposes of 

acting upon a redesignation request. 

However, even if EPA takes the view 

that the requirements of subpart 4 were 

deemed applicable at the time the state 

submitted the redesignation request, 

and disregards the implementation 

rule’s rebuttable presumptions regarding 

NH3 and VOC as PM2.5 precursors, the 

regulatory consequence would be to 

consider the need for regulation of all 

precursors from any sources in the area 

to demonstrate attainment and to apply 

the section 189(e) provisions to major 

stationary sources of precursors. In the 

case of Wheeling Area, EPA believes 

that doing so would not affect the 

approvability of the proposed 

redesignation of the Area for the 1997 

PM2.5 standard. The Wheeling Area has 

attained the standard without any 

specific additional controls of NH3 and 

VOC 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 NH3 and VOC. Thus we 

must address here whether additional 

controls of NH3 and VOC from major 

stationary sources are required under 

section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to 

redesignate the Wheeling Area for the 

1997 PM2.5 standard. As explained 

below, we do not believe that any 

additional controls of NH3 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). See 57 FR 13542. EPA in 

this supplemental proposal proposes to 

determine that the West Virginia SIP has 

met the provisions of section 189(e) 

with respect to NH3 and VOCs as 

precursors. This proposed supplemental 

determination is based on our findings 

that (1) the Wheeling Area contains no 

major stationary sources of NH3, 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 Wheeling Area, 

which is attaining the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard, at present NH3 and VOC 

precursors from major stationary 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to levels exceeding the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard in the Wheeling Area. 

See 57 FR 13539–42. 

EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule provisions in 40 

CFR 51.1002 were not directed at 

evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the 

context of redesignation, but at SIP 

plans and control measures required to 

bring a nonattainment area into 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

By contrast, redesignation to attainment 

primarily requires the area to have 

already attained due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions, and to 

demonstrate that controls in place can 

continue to maintain the standard. 

Thus, even if we regard the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s January 4, 2013 decision as 

calling for ‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of 

NH3 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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44492 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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

Implementation Plans for California—San Joaquin 

Valley PM10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan 

for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual PM10

Standards,’’ 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) (approving 

a PM10 attainment plan that imposes 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). 

West Virginia 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 Wheeling Area 

has already attained the 1997 annual 

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 D.C. 

Circuit Court’s decision is construed to 

impose an obligation, in evaluating this 

redesignation request, to consider 

additional precursors under subpart 4, it 

would not affect EPA’s approval here of 

West Virginia’s request for redesignation 

of the Wheeling 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 D.C. 

Circuit Court as precluding 

redesignation of the Wheeling Area to 

attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at 

this time. 

In summary, even if West Virginia 

were required to address precursors for 

the Wheeling 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) of the 

CAA. 

4. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of 

Precursors 

With regard to the redesignation of 

West Virginia, in evaluating the effect of 

the D.C. Circuit Court’s remand of EPA’s 

implementation rule, which included 

presumptions against consideration of 

VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, 

EPA in this supplemental proposal is 

also considering the impact of the 

decision on the maintenance plan 

required under sections 175A and 

107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA. To begin 

with, EPA notes that the Area has 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 

and that the State has shown that 

attainment of that standard is due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions. 

In the December 11, 2012 NPR, EPA 

proposed to determine that the State’s 

maintenance plan shows continued 

maintenance of the standard by tracking 

the levels of the precursors whose 

control brought about attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard in the 

Wheeling Area. EPA therefore, believes 

that the only additional consideration 

related to the maintenance plan 

requirements that results from the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 decision, 

is that of assessing the potential role of 

NH3 and VOC in demonstrating 

continued maintenance in this Area. 

Based upon documentation provided by 

the State and supporting information, 

EPA believes that the maintenance plan 

for the Wheeling Area need not include 

any additional emission reductions of 

NH3 or VOC in order to provide for 

continued maintenance of the standard. 

First, as noted above in EPA’s 

discussion of section 189(e), VOC 

emission levels in this Area have 

historically been well-controlled under 

SIP requirements related to ozone and 

other pollutants. Second, total NH3

emissions throughout the Wheeling 

Area are very low, estimated to be less 

than 800 tons per year. See Table 2. This 

amount of NH3 emissions appears 

especially small in comparison to the 

total amounts of SO2, NOX, and even 

direct PM2.5 emissions from sources in 

the Area. Third, as described below, 

available information shows that no 

precursor, including NH3 and VOC, is 

expected to increase over the 

maintenance period so as to interfere 

with or undermine the State’s 

maintenance demonstration. 

West Virginia’s maintenance plan 

shows that emissions of direct PM2.5, 

SO2, and NOX are projected to decrease 

by 2,529 tons per year (tpy), 35,616 tpy, 

and 20,581 tpy, respectively, over the 

maintenance period. See Table 1. In 

addition, emissions inventories used in 

the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS show that VOC 

and NH3 emissions are projected to 

decrease by 2,209 tpy between 2007 and 

2020. NH3 emissions are projected to 

increase by 59 tpy between 2007 and 

2020. See Table 2. Given that the 

Wheeling Area is already attaining the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS even with the 

current level of emissions from sources 

in the Area, the downward trend of 

emissions inventories would be 

consistent with continued attainment. 

Indeed, projected emissions reductions 

for the precursors that the State is 

addressing for purposes of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS indicate that the Area 

should continue to attain the NAAQS 

following the precursor control strategy 

that the State has already elected to 

pursue. 

Even if VOC and ammonia emissions 

were to increase unexpectedly between 

2007 and 2020, the overall emissions 

reductions projected in direct PM2.5,

SO2, and NOX would be sufficient to 

offset any increases. For these reasons, 

EPA believes that local emissions of all 

of the potential PM2.5 precursors will 

not increase to the extent that they will 

cause monitored PM2.5 levels to violate 

the 1997 PM2.5 standard during the 

maintenance period. 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015, 2022 SO2, NOX, AND DIRECT PM2.5 EMISSION TOTALS IN TONS PER YEAR (TPY) 

FOR THE WHEELING NONATTAINMENT AREA

SO2 NOX PM2.5

2008 ................................................................................................................................. 67,103 35,971 6.001 

2015 ................................................................................................................................. 36,843 16,204 3,436 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 44493 

11These emissions estimates were taken from the 

emissions inventories developed for the RIA for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. NH3 increases are due to some 

(∼5%) increase in fertilizer application, but mostly 

from EGU, and with huge SO2 (point) reductions 

(88,229 in 2007 and 14,285 in 2020) would offset 

any increases. 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015, 2022 SO2, NOX, AND DIRECT PM2.5 EMISSION TOTALS IN TONS PER YEAR (TPY) 

FOR THE WHEELING NONATTAINMENT AREA—Continued 

SO2 NOX PM2.5

2022 ................................................................................................................................. 31,487 15,390 3,472 

Decrease from 2008 to 2022 ........................................................................................... 35,616 20,581 2,529 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2020 VOC AND AMMONIA EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE

WHEELING NONATTAINMENT AREA 11

Sector 

VOC NH3

2007 2020 Net change 

2007–2020 2007 2020 Net change 2007–2020 

Point ......................................................... 396 402 6 89 186 97 

Area .......................................................... 1,686 1,651 ¥35 532 538 6 

Nonroad ................................................... 999 514 ¥485 1 1 0 

On-road .................................................... 2,469 774 ¥1,695 86 42 ¥44 

Fires ......................................................... 70 70 0 5 5 0 

Total .................................................. 5,621 3,412 ¥2,209 713 772 59 

In addition, available air quality 

modeling analyses show continued 

maintenance of the standard during the 

maintenance period. The current air 

quality design value for the Area is 13.0 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) 

(based on 2009–2011 air quality data), 

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 indicates that the 

design value for this Area is expected to 

continue to decline through 2020. In the 

RIA analysis, the 2020 modeled design 

value for the Wheeling Area is 8.4 

mg/m3. Given that precursor emissions 

are projected to decrease through 2020, 

it is reasonable to conclude that 

monitored PM2.5 levels in this Area will 

also continue to decrease in 2020. 

Thus, EPA believes that there is 

ample justification to conclude that the 

Wheeling Area should be redesignated, 

even taking into consideration the 

emissions of other precursors 

potentially relevant to PM2.5. After 

consideration of the D.C. Circuit Court’s 

January 4, 2013 decision, and for the 

reasons set forth in this supplemental 

notice, EPA continues to propose 

approval of West Virginia’s maintenance 

plan and its request to redesignate the 

Wheeling Area to attainment for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard. 

III. Ammonia and Volatile Organic 

Compound Comprehensive Emissions 

Inventory 

EPA in this proposal also addresses 

the State’s submission that provides 

additional information concerning NH3

and VOC emissions in the area in order 

to meet the emissions inventory 

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

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

requires states to submit a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

emissions inventory for the attainment 

area. For purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS, 

this emissions inventory should address 

not only direct emissions of PM2.5, but 

also emissions of all precursors with the 

potential to participate in PM2.5

formation, i.e., SO2, NOX, VOC and NH3. 

In the December 11, 2012 NPR (77 FR 

73575), EPA proposed to approve the 

emissions inventory information 

requirement for the Wheeling Area. On 

June 24, 2013, West Virginia 

supplemented its submittal with the 

2008 emission inventories for NH3 and 

VOC. The additional emission 

inventories information provided by the 

State addresses emissions of NH3 and 

VOC from the general source categories 

of point sources, area sources, onroad 

mobile sources, and nonroad sources. 

See Table 3. The state-submitted 

inventories were based on the data that 

West Virginia certified and submitted to 

the 2008 National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI) that is available at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008

inventory.html. The NEI is a 

comprehensive and detailed estimate of 

air emissions of both criteria and 

hazardous air pollutants from all air 

emissions sources. The NEI is prepared 

every three years by EPA based 

primarily upon emission estimates and 

emission model inputs provided by 

State, Local and Tribal air agencies. 

The NEI point data category contains 

emission estimates for sources that are 

individually inventory and located at a 

fixed, stationary location. Point sources 

include large industrial facilities and 

electric power plants. The NEI nonpoint 

data category contains emissions 

estimates for sources which 

individually are too small in magnitude 

or too numerous to inventory as 

individual point sources. The NEI 

onroad and nonroad data categories 

contain mobile sources which are 

estimated for the 2008 NEI version 3 via 

the MOVES2010b and NONROAD 

models, respectively. NONROAD was 

run within the National Mobile 

Inventory Model (NMIM). 

TABLE 3—MARSHALL COUNTY, 

WHEELING AREA NH3 AND VOC 

EMISSIONS (TPY) BY SOURCE SECTOR

Sector NH3 VOC 

Point .......................... 31.85 320.50 

Area .......................... 78.90 2,944.99 

Nonroad .................... 0.12 163.45 

Onroad ...................... 10.36 269.32 

Total ................... 121.23 3, 698.26 

EPA has concluded that the 2008 NH3

and VOC emissions inventories 

provided by the State are complete and 

as accurate as possible given the input 

data available for the relevant 

categories. EPA also believes that these 

inventories provide information about 

NH3 and VOC as PM2.5 precursors in the 

context of evaluating redesignation of 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
44494 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the Wheeling Area under subpart 4. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve 

the NH3 and VOC emissions inventories 

submitted by the State, in conjunction 

with the NOx, direct PM2.5, and SO2

emissions inventories that EPA 

previously proposed to approve as fully 

meeting the comprehensive inventory 

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

CAA for the Wheeling Area for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard. See (77 FR 7357, 

December 11, 2012). Since EPA’s prior 

proposal addressed other precursor 

emissions inventories, EPA in this 

supplemental proposal is seeking 

comment only with respect to the 

additional inventories for NH3 and VOC 

that West Virginia has submitted. 

IV. Proposed Action 

After fully considering the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s decision in NRDC v. EPA 

on EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 Implementation 

rule, EPA in this supplemental notice is 

proposing to proceed with approval of 

the request to redesignate the Wheeling 

Area to attainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS and the associated 

maintenance plan. EPA in this 

supplemental notice is also proposing to 

approve the 2008 NH3 and VOC 

emissions inventory as meeting, in 

conjunction with the direct PM2.5, NOX

and SO2 emissions inventory that EPA 

previously proposed to approve, the 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

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

CAA. In addition, EPA in this 

supplemental action is proposing to 

proceed with the approval of the 

insignificance determination of the 

onroad motor vehicle contribution of 

PM2.5, NOX and SO2. EPA is seeking 

comment only on the issues raised in its 

supplemental proposal, and is not reopening comment on other issues 

addressed in its prior proposal. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• 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 CAA; and 

• does 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 

pertaining to the redesignation of the 

West Virginia portion of the Wheeling 

WV–OH 1997 annual PM2.5

nonattainment area, 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 Parts 52 and 

81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: July 8, 2013. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17704 Filed 7–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0877; FRL–9837–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Designation of 

Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; State of California; PM10; 

Redesignation of Sacramento to 

Attainment; Approval of PM10

Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for Sacramento 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve, 

as a revision of the California state 

implementation plan, the State’s request 

to redesignate the Sacramento 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

24-hour particulate matter of ten 

microns or less (PM10) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to 

approve the PM10 maintenance plan and 

the associated motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for use in transportation 

conformity determinations necessary for 

the Sacramento area. Finally, EPA is 

proposing to approve the attainment 

year emissions inventory. EPA is 

proposing these actions because the SIP 

revision meets the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act and EPA guidance for 

such plans and motor vehicle emissions 

budgets. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 23, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2012–0877, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: John Ungvarsky 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1