Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 3757 

electronically must include a color 

reproduction of the mark. 

* * * * * 

■ 25. Revise § 7.23(a)(5) and (6) to read 

as follows: 

§ 7.23 Requests for recording 

assignments at the International Bureau. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(5) A statement that, after a good faith 

effort, the assignee could not obtain the 

assignor’s signature for the request to 

record the assignment, signed and 

verified (sworn to) or supported by a 

declaration under § 2.20 of this chapter; 

(6) An indication that the assignment 

applies to the designation to the United 

States or an international registration 

that is based on a U.S. application or 

registration; 

* * * * * 

■ 26. Revise § 7.24(b)(5)(ii) and (b)(7) to 

read as follows: 

§ 7.24 Requests to record security interest 

or other restriction of holder’s rights of 

disposal or release of such restriction 

submitted through the Office. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) Where the restriction is the result 

of an agreement between the holder of 

the international registration and the 

party restricting the holder’s right of 

disposal, a statement that after a good 

faith effort, the signature of the holder 

of the international registration could 

not be obtained for the request to record 

the restriction, or release of the 

restriction, signed and verified (sworn 

to) or supported by a declaration under 

§ 2.20 of this chapter; 

* * * * * 

(7) An indication that the restriction, 

or the release of the restriction, of the 

holder’s right of disposal of the 

international registration applies to the 

designation to the United States or an 

international registration that is based 

on a U.S. application or registration; and 

* * * * * 

■ 27. Revise § 7.25(a) to read as follows: 

§ 7.25 Sections of part 2 applicable to 

extension of protection. 

(a) Except for §§ 2.21–2.23, 2.76, 2.88, 

2.89, 2.130–2.131, 2.160–2.166, 2.168, 

2.173, 2.175, 2.181–2.186 and 2.197, all 

sections in part 2 and all sections in part 

11 of this chapter shall apply to an 

extension of protection of an 

international registration to the United 

States, including sections related to 

proceedings before the Trademark Trial 

and Appeal Board, unless otherwise 

stated. 

* * * * * 

■ 28. Amend § 7.31 by revising the 

introductory text and paragraphs (a)(3) 

and (a)(4), and adding new paragraph 

(a)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 7.31 Requirements for transformation of 

an extension of protection to the United 

States into a U.S. application. 

If the International Bureau cancels an 

international registration in whole or in 

part, under Article 6(4) of the Madrid 

Protocol, the holder of that international 

registration may file a request to 

transform the goods and/or services to 

which the cancellation applies in the 

corresponding pending or registered 

extension of protection to the United 

States into an application under section 

1 or 44 of the Act. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Identify the goods and/or services 

to be transformed, if other than all the 

goods and/or services that have been 

cancelled; 

(4) The application filing fee for at 

least one class of goods or services 

required by § 2.6(a)(1) of this chapter; 

and 

(5) An email address for receipt of 

correspondence from the Office. 

* * * * * 

Dated: January 15, 2014. 

Michelle K. Lee, 

Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Intellectual Property and Deputy Director, 

United States Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2014–01126 Filed 1–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0893; FRL–9905–11– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Georgia; Redesignation of 

the Rome, Georgia 1997 Annual Fine 

Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area 

to Attainment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On June 21, 2012, the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources, 

through Georgia Environmental 

Protection Division (GA EPD), 

submitted a request to redesignate the 

Rome, Georgia, fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) nonattainment area (hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘Rome Area’’ or 

‘‘Area’’) to attainment for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) and to 

approve a state implementation plan 

(SIP) revision containing a maintenance 

plan for the Rome Area. The Rome Area 

is comprised of Floyd County in 

Georgia. EPA is proposing to approve 

the redesignation request and the 

related SIP revision for the Rome Area, 

including GA EPD’s plan for 

maintaining attainment of the PM2.5

standard in the Area. EPA is also 

proposing to approve into the Georgia 

SIP, the motor vehicle emission budgets 

(MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 

PM2.5 for the year 2023 for the Rome 

Area that are included as part of 

Georgia’s maintenance plan for the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 24, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0893, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0893, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0893. 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3758 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1 In notices published on April 5, 2011, at 76 FR 

18650, and on September 8, 2011, at 76 FR 55776, 

EPA determined that the Rome Area had attained 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and that the Area 

had done so by its applicable attainment date of 

April 5, 2010. 

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 information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

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 at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joydeb Majumder or Joel Huey of the 

Regulatory Development Section, in the 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Joydeb 

Majumder may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9121, or via electronic mail at 

majumder.joydeb@epa.gov. Joel Huey 

may be reached by phone at (404) 562– 

9104. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to 

take? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

III. What are the criteria for redesignation? 

IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the request? 

VI. What is the effect of January 4, 2013, DC 

Circuit decision regarding PM2.5

implementation under Subpart 4? 

VII. What is EPA’s analysis of Georgia’s 

proposed NOx and PM2.5 MVEBs for the 

Rome area? 

VIII. What is the status of EPA’s adequacy 

determination for the proposed NOx and 

PM2.5 MVEBs for 2023 for the Rome area? 

IX. Proposed actions on the redesignation 

request and maintenance plan SIP 

revisions including approval of the NOX

and PM2.5 MVEBs for 2023 for the Rome 

Area. 

X. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed 

actions? 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What are the actions EPA is 

proposing to take? 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

make a determination that Rome Area is 

continuing to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS 1 and to take additional 

actions related to Georgia’s request to 

redesignate the Rome Area, which are 

summarized as follows and described in 

greater detail throughout this notice of 

proposed rulemaking: (1) to redesignate 

the Rome Area to attainment for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; and (2) to 

approve, under section 175A of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), Georgia’s 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance 

plan, including the associated MVEBs, 

for the Rome Area into the Georgia SIP. 

First, EPA proposes to determine that 

the Rome Area has met the requirements 

for redesignation under section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. In this action, 

EPA is proposing to approve a request 

to change the legal designation of Floyd 

County from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

Georgia’s 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

maintenance plan for the Rome Area 

(such approval being one of the CAA 

criteria for redesignation to attainment 

status). The maintenance plan is 

designed to help keep the Rome Area in 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS through 2023. As explained in 

Section V, EPA is also proposing to 

approve that attainment can be 

maintained through 2024. The 

maintenance plan that EPA is proposing 

to approve today includes on-road 

MVEBs for the mobile source 

contribution of direct PM2.5 and NOX to 

the air quality problem in the Rome 

Area for transportation conformity 

purposes. EPA is proposing to approve 

(into the Georgia SIP) the 2023 MVEBs 

that are included as part of Georgia’s 

maintenance plan for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Further, EPA proposes to make the 

determination that the Rome Area is 

continuing to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS and that all other 

redesignation criteria have been met for 

the Rome Area. The bases for EPA’s 

determination for the Area are discussed 

in greater detail below. 

EPA is also notifying the public of an 

update of the status of EPA’s adequacy 

process for the 2023 direct MVEBs for 

PM2.5 and NOX for the Rome Area. 

Please see section VIII of this proposed 

rulemaking for further explanation of 

this process and for more details. 

Today’s notice of proposed 

rulemaking is in response to Georgia’s 

June 21, 2012, SIP submittal, which 

requests redesignation of the Rome Area 

to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS and addresses the specific 

issues summarized above and the 

necessary elements for redesignation 

described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 

CAA. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

Fine particle pollution can be emitted 

directly or formed secondarily in the 

atmosphere. The main precursors of 

secondary PM2.5 are sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), NOX, ammonia, and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC). See, e.g., 72 

FR 20586 at 20589. Sulfates are a type 

of secondary particle formed from SO2

emissions of power plants and 

industrial facilities. Nitrates, another 

common type of secondary particle, are 

formed from NOX emissions of power 

plants, automobiles, and other 

combustion sources. 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

the first air quality standards for PM2.5. 

EPA promulgated an annual standard at 

a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3), based on a 3-year average of 

annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. In 

the same rulemaking, EPA promulgated 

a 24-hour standard of 65 mg/m3, based 

on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On 

October 17, 2006, at 71 FR 61144, EPA 

retained the annual average NAAQS at 

15 mg/m3 but revised the 24-hour 

NAAQS to 35 mg/m3, based again on the 

3-year average of the 98th percentile of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 3759 

2 In response to legal challenges of the annual 

standard promulgated in 2006, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (D.C. Cir.) remanded that NAAQS 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). However, 

given that the 1997 and 2006 annual NAAQS are 

essentially identical, attainment of the 1997 annual 

NAAQS would also indicate attainment of he 

remanded 2006 annual NAAQS. 

24-hour concentrations.2 Under EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 

primary and secondary 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS are attained when the 

annual arithmetic mean concentration, 

as determined in accordance with 40 

CFR part 50, Appendix N, is less than 

or equal to 15.0 mg/m3 at all relevant 

monitoring sites in the subject area over 

a 3-year period. 

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

supplemented on April 14, 2005, at 70 

FR 19844, EPA designated the Rome 

Area as nonattainment for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. In that action, EPA 

defined the 1997 PM2.5 Rome Area to 

include Floyd County in Georgia. On 

November 13, 2009, at 74 FR 58688, 

EPA promulgated designations for the 

24-hour standard established in 2006, 

designating the Rome Area as 

attainment for that NAAQS. That action 

clarified that the Rome Area was 

classified unclassifiable/attainment for 

the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

did not promulgate designations for the 

2006 annual PM2.5 NAAQS because that 

NAAQS was essentially identical to the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and today’s 

action only addresses this designation. 

All 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS areas were 

designated under subpart 1 of title I, 

part D, of the CAA. Subpart 1 contains 

the general requirements for 

nonattainment areas for any pollutant 

governed by a NAAQS and is less 

prescriptive than the other subparts of 

title I, part D. On April 25, 2007, at 72 

FR 20586, EPA promulgated its Clean 

Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, 

codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z, 

in which the Agency provided guidance 

for state and tribal plans to implement 

the 1997 PM2.5 annual NAAQS. This 

rule, at 40 CFR 51.1004(c), specifies 

some of the regulatory results of 

attaining the NAAQS, as discussed 

below. The DC Circuit remanded the 

Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

Rule 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’’) to 

EPA on January 4, 2013, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 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-matterspecific provisions of subpart 4 of Part 

D of Title I. The effect of the court’s 

ruling on this proposed redesignation 

action is discussed in detail in Section 

VI of this notice. 

The 3-year ambient air quality data for 

2007–2009 indicated no violations of 

the 1997 PM2.5 annual NAAQS for the 

Rome Area. As a result, on June 21, 

2012, Georgia requested redesignation of 

the Rome Area to attainment for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

redesignation request includes three 

years of complete, quality-assured 

ambient air quality data for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS for 2007–2009, 

indicating that the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

had been achieved for the entire Rome 

Area. Under the CAA, nonattainment 

areas may be redesignated to attainment 

if sufficient, complete, quality-assured 

data is available for the Administrator to 

determine that the area has attained the 

standard and the area meets the other 

CAA redesignation requirements in 

section 107(d)(3)(E). The Rome Area 

design value based on data from 2007 

through 2009 is 13.3 mg/m3, which 

demonstrates attainment of the 

standard. While annual PM2.5

concentrations are dependent on a 

variety of conditions, the overall 

improvement in annual PM2.5

concentrations in the Rome Area can be 

attributed to the reduction of pollutant 

emissions, as discussed in more detail 

in section V of this proposed 

rulemaking. 

III. What are the criteria for 

redesignation? 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

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

redesignation provided the following 

criteria are met: (1) The Administrator 

determines that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS; (2) the 

Administrator has fully approved the 

applicable implementation plan for the 

area under section 110(k); (3) the 

Administrator determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP 

and applicable federal air pollutant 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable reductions; (4) the 

Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A; and (5) the state containing such 

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area under section 110 and part 

D of title I of the CAA. 

EPA has provided guidance on 

redesignation in the General Preamble 

for the Implementation of title I of the 

CAA Amendments of 1990 (April 16, 

1992, 57 FR 13498, and supplemented 

on April 28, 1992, 57 FR 18070) and has 

provided further guidance on processing 

redesignation requests in the following 

documents: 

1. ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992 (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Calcagni Memorandum’’); 

2. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean 

Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, October 28, 1992; 

3. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part 

D NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; 

and 

4. ‘‘Next Steps for Pending 

Redesignation Requests and State 

Implementation Plan Actions Affected 

by the Recent Court Decision Vacating 

the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule,’’ Memorandum from Gina 

McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, 

November 19, 2012. 

IV. Why is EPA proposing these 

actions? 

On June 21, 2012, GA EPD requested 

the redesignation of the Rome Area to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. The Rome Area has attained 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

EPA’s preliminary evaluation indicates 

that the Area has met the requirements 

for redesignation set forth in section 

107(d)(3)(E), including the maintenance 

plan requirements under section 175A 

of the CAA. EPA is also announcing the 

status of its adequacy determination for 

the direct PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the 

Rome Area. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

request? 

As stated above, in accordance with 

the CAA, EPA proposes in today’s 

action to: (1) Redesignate the Rome Area 

to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS; and (2) approve into the 

Georgia SIP the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS maintenance plan, including 

the associated MVEBs, for the Rome 

Area. Further, EPA proposes to make 

the determination that the Rome Area 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3760 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS and that all other 

redesignation criteria have been met for 

the Rome Area. The five redesignation 

criteria provided under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater 

detail for the Area in the following 

paragraphs of this section. 

Criteria (1)—The Rome Area Has 

Attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the area has 

attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). EPA is 

proposing to determine that the Rome 

Area continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS since the September 8, 

2011, attainment determination. For 

PM2.5, an area may be considered to be 

attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 if it 

meets the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, as 

determined in accordance with 40 CFR 

50.13 and Appendix N of part 50, based 

on three complete, consecutive calendar 

years of quality-assured air quality 

monitoring data. To attain these 

NAAQS, the 3-year average of the 

annual arithmetic mean concentration, 

as determined in accordance with 40 

CFR part 50, Appendix N, must be less 

than or equal to 15.0 mg/m3 at all 

relevant monitoring sites in the subject 

area over a 3-year period. The relevant 

data must be collected and qualityassured in accordance with 40 CFR part 

58 and recorded in the EPA Air Quality 

System (AQS) database. The monitors 

generally should have remained at the 

same location for the duration of the 

monitoring period required for 

demonstrating attainment. 

On April 5, 2011, at 76 FR 18650, EPA 

determined that the Rome Area was 

attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. For that action EPA reviewed 

PM2.5 monitoring data from monitoring 

station in the Rome Area for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS for 2007–2009. 

These data have been quality-assured 

and are recorded in AQS. On September 

8, 2011, at 76 FR 55774, EPA also 

finalized a determination that the Rome 

Area attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date of April 5, 2010. EPA has reviewed 

more recent data, which indicates that 

the Rome Area continues to attain the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS beyond the 

submitted 3-year attainment period of 

2007–2009. The most recent year 

available with complete, quality-assured 

and certified ambient air monitoring is 

2012, during which the Area recorded 

an annual average PM2.5 concentration 

of 10.6 mg/m3. EPA has also reviewed 

the available data in AQS for 2013 

which, although not yet complete or 

certified, indicates the Area continues to 

attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As summarized in Table 1 below, the 3- 

year average of annual arithmetic mean 

concentrations (i.e., design values) for 

the years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 for 

the Rome Area are below the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUE CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE ROME AREA FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS (μg/m3) 

Location County Site ID 

3-Year design values 

2007–2009 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 

Rome-Coosa Elementary School .............. Floyd ............ 13–115–0003 13.3 12.5 12.4 12.1 

As discussed above, the design value 

for an area is the highest 3-year average 

annual mean concentration recorded at 

any monitor in the area for a 3-year 

period. Therefore, the 3-year design 

value for the period on which Georgia 

based its redesignation request (2007– 

2009) for the Rome Area is 13.3 mg/m3, 

which meets the NAAQS as described 

above. Additional details can be found 

in EPA’s final clean data determination 

for the Rome Area (76 FR 18650, April 

5, 2011). EPA has reviewed more recent 

data which indicate that the Rome Area 

continues to attain the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS beyond the submitted 3-year 

attainment period of 2007–2009. If the 

Area does not continue to attain before 

EPA finalizes the redesignation, EPA 

will not go forward with the 

redesignation. As discussed in more 

detail below, GA EPD has committed to 

continue monitoring in this Area in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. 

Criteria (5)—Georgia Has Met All 

Applicable Requirements Under Section 

110 and Part D of the CAA; and Criteria 

(2)—Georgia Has a Fully Approved SIP 

Under Section 110(k) for the Rome Area 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the state has met 

all applicable requirements under 

section 110 and part D of title I of the 

CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and 

that the state has a fully approved SIP 

under section 110(k) for the area (CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA proposes 

to find that Georgia has met all 

applicable SIP requirements for the 

Rome Area under section 110 of the 

CAA (general SIP requirements) for 

purposes of redesignation. Additionally, 

EPA proposes to find that the Georgia 

SIP satisfies the criterion that it meet 

applicable SIP requirements for 

purposes of redesignation under part D 

of title I of the CAA (requirements 

specific to 1997 annual PM2.5

nonattainment areas) in accordance 

with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further, 

EPA proposes to determine that the SIP 

is fully approved with respect to all 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these 

determinations, EPA ascertained which 

requirements are applicable to the Area 

and, if applicable, that they are fully 

approved under section 110(k). SIPs 

must be fully approved only with 

respect to requirements that were 

applicable prior to submittal of the 

complete redesignation request. 

a. The Rome Area Has Met All 

Applicable Requirements Under Section 

110 and Part D of the CAA 

General SIP requirements. Section 

110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA delineates 

the general requirements for a SIP, 

which include enforceable emissions 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques; provisions for the 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices necessary to collect 

data on ambient air quality; and 

programs to enforce the limitations. 

General SIP elements and requirements 

are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of 

title I, part A of the CAA. These 

requirements include, but are not 

limited to, the following: submittal of a 

SIP that has been adopted by the state 

after reasonable public notice and 

hearing; provisions for establishment 

and operation of appropriate procedures 

needed to monitor ambient air quality; 

implementation of a source permit 

program; provisions for the 

implementation of part C requirements 

(Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD)) and provisions for the 

implementation of part D requirements 

(Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR) permit programs); provisions for 

air pollution modeling; and provisions 

for public and local agency participation 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 3761 

3The June 15, 2012 proposed approval (77 FR 

35909) addressed all infrastructure SIP elements 

required under section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS with the exception of the visibility 

element under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (also 

known as ‘‘prong 4’’). EPA finalized the June 15, 

2012 proposed action on October 25, 2012 (77 FR 

65125). EPA proposed approval of prong 4 for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS on February 20, 2013 

(78 FR 11805) but has not yet taken final action on 

this element. 

in planning and emission control rule 

development. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs 

contain certain measures to prevent 

sources in a state from significantly 

contributing to air quality problems in 

another state. To implement this 

provision, EPA has required certain 

states to establish programs to address 

the interstate transport of air pollutants. 

The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements 

for a state are not linked with a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification in that 

state. EPA believes that the 

requirements linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classifications 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, EPA does not 

believe that the CAA’s interstate 

transport requirements should be 

construed to be applicable requirements 

for purposes of redesignation. However, 

as discussed later in this notice, 

addressing pollutant transport from 

other states is an important part of an 

area’s maintenance demonstration. 

In addition, EPA believes other 

section 110 elements that are neither 

connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions nor linked with an area’s 

attainment status are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The area will still be 

subject to these requirements after the 

area is redesignated. The section 110 

and part D requirements which are 

linked with a particular area’s 

designation and classification are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request. This 

approach is consistent with EPA’s 

existing policy on applicability (i.e., for 

redesignations) of conformity and 

oxygenated fuels requirements, as well 

as with section 184 ozone transport 

requirements. See Reading, 

Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176, 

October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 

1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, 

final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December 

7, 1995). See also the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio, 

redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 

2000), and in the Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR 

50399, October 19, 2001). 

On June 15, 2012 (77 FR 35909) and 

February 20, 2013 (78 FR 11805), EPA 

proposed approval on a submittal from 

Georgia, addressing ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

elements required under the CAA 

section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS.3 However, these are 

statewide requirements that are not a 

consequence of the nonattainment 

status of the Rome Area. As stated 

above, EPA believes that section 110 

elements not linked to an area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. Therefore, 

notwithstanding the fact that EPA has 

not yet completed rulemaking on 

Georgia’s submittal for the PM2.5

infrastructure SIP elements of section 

110(a)(2), EPA believes that it has 

approved all SIP elements that must be 

approved as a prerequisite for 

redesignating the Rome Area to 

attainment. 

Title I, Part D, subpart 1 applicable 

SIP requirements. EPA proposes to 

determine that the Georgia SIP meets 

the applicable SIP requirements for the 

Rome Area for purposes of 

redesignation under part D of the CAA. 

Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 

172–176 of the CAA, sets for the basic 

nonattainment requirements applicable 

to all nonattainment areas. All areas that 

were designated nonattainment for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS were 

designated under subpart 1 of the CAA. 

For purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation request, the applicable 

part D, subpart 1 SIP requirements for 

all nonattainment areas are contained in 

sections 172(c)(1)–(9) and in section 

176. 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 VI of 

this proposed rulemaking notice 

discusses the relationship between this 

proposed redesignation action and 

subpart 4 of Part D. 

Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements. 

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 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. Under 

section 172, states with nonattainment 

areas must submit plans providing for 

timely attainment and meeting a variety 

of other requirements. However, 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c), EPA’s 

final determination that the Rome Area 

is attaining the annual PM2.5 standard 

suspended Georgia’s obligation to 

submit most of the attainment planning 

requirements that would otherwise 

apply. Specifically, the determination of 

attainment suspended Georgia’s 

obligation to submit an attainment 

demonstration and planning SIPs to 

provide for reasonable further progress 

(RFP), RACM, and contingency 

measures under section 172(c)(9). 

The General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992) also discusses the 

evaluation of the section 172 

requirements in the context of EPA’s 

consideration of a redesignation request. 

The General Preamble sets forth EPA’s 

view of applicable requirements for 

purposes of evaluating redesignation 

requests when an area is attaining a 

standard. 

Because attainment has been reached 

in the Rome Area, no additional 

measures are needed to provide for 

attainment, and section 172(c)(1) 

requirements for an attainment 

demonstration and RACM are no longer 

considered to be applicable for purposes 

of redesignation as long as the Area 

continues to attain the standard until 

redesignation. See also 40 CFR 

51.1004(c). 

Pursuant to section 172(c)(2), 

nonattainment plans must contain 

provisions that require reasonable 

further progress toward attainment. This 

requirement is not relevant for purposes 

of redesignation because EPA has 

determined that the Rome Area has 

monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See General 

Preamble, 57 FR 13564. See also 40 CFR 

51.1004(c). In addition, because the 

Rome Area has attained the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS and is no longer subject 

to a RFP requirement, the requirement 

to submit the section 172(c)(9) 

contingency measures is not applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. Id. 

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission 

and approval of a comprehensive, 

accurate, and current inventory of actual 

emissions. On January 12, 2012, EPA 

approved Georgia’s 2002 base-year 

emissions inventory for the Rome Area 

as part of the SIP revision submitted by 

GA EPD to provide for attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area. See 77 

FR 1873. No comments, adverse or 

otherwise, were received on EPA’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3762 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

4CAA Section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to 

submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain 

federal criteria and procedures for determining 

transportation conformity. Transportation 

conformity SIPs are different from the MVEBs that 

are established in control strategy SIPs and 

maintenance plans. 

proposed approval of the emissions 

inventory for the Rome Area. 

Section 172(c)(4) requires the 

identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources to be 

allowed 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 has determined that, since PSD 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation, areas being redesignated 

need not comply with the requirement 

that a NSR program be approved prior 

to redesignation, provided that the area 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

NAAQS without part D NSR. A more 

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.’’ Georgia 

has demonstrated that the Rome Area 

will be able to maintain the NAAQS 

without part D NSR in effect, and 

therefore, Georgia need not have fully 

approved part D NSR programs prior to 

approval of the redesignation request. 

Georgia’s PSD program will become 

effective in the Rome Area upon 

redesignation to attainment. 

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

contain control measures necessary to 

provide for attainment of the NAAQS. 

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, EPA 

believes the Georgia SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

176 Conformity Requirements. 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that federallysupported or funded projects conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIP. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects that are developed, funded or 

approved under title 23 of the United 

States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal 

Transit Act (transportation conformity) 

as well as to all other federallysupported or funded projects (general 

conformity). State transportation 

conformity SIP revisions must be 

consistent with federal conformity 

regulations relating to consultation, 

enforcement and enforceability that EPA 

promulgated pursuant to its authority 

under the CAA. 

EPA believes that it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity SIP 

requirements 4 as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request under section 107(d) because 

state conformity rules are still required 

after redesignation and federal 

conformity rules apply where state rules 

have not been approved. See Wall v. 

EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (upholding this 

interpretation) (6th Cir. 2001); see also 

60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995, Tampa, 

Florida). Thus, the Rome Area has 

satisfied all applicable requirements for 

purposes of redesignation under section 

110 and part D of the CAA. 

b. The Rome Area Has a Fully Approved 

Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of 

the CAA 

EPA has fully approved the applicable 

Georgia SIP for the Rome Area for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 nonattainment 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 Calcagni 

Memorandum at p. 3; Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 

Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–90 (6th Cir. 

1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426) plus any 

additional measures it may approve in 

conjunction with a redesignation action 

(see 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and 

citations therein). Following passage of 

the CAA of 1970, Georgia has adopted 

and submitted, and EPA has fully 

approved at various times, provisions 

addressing the various SIP elements 

applicable for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS in the Rome Area (e.g., 77 FR 

35909, June 15, 2012). 

As indicated above, EPA believes that 

the section 110 elements not connected 

with nonattainment plan submissions 

and not linked to the area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. In addition, EPA believes 

that since the part D subpart 1 

requirements did not become due prior 

to submission of the redesignation 

request, they are also not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); 68 FR 25424, 

25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of 

the St. Louis-East St. Louis Area to 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS). EPA has previously approved 

all part D subpart 1 requirements 

applicable for purposes of this 

redesignation. See Section VI of this 

notice for a discussion of the 

relationship between part D subpart 4 

and this action. 

Criteria (3)—The Air Quality 

Improvement in the Rome Area 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS Nonattainment 

Area 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 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the air quality 

improvement in the area is due to 

permanentF and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP and 

applicable federal air pollution control 

regulations and other permanent and 

enforceable reductions (CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA believes that 

Georgia has demonstrated that the 

observed air quality improvement in the 

Rome Area is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

SIP, federal measures, and other state 

adopted measures. 

Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, 

refers to airborne particles less than or 

equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter. 

Although treated as a single pollutant, 

fine particles come from many different 

sources and are composed of many 

different compounds. In the Rome Area, 

one of the largest components of PM2.5

is sulfate, which is formed through 

various chemical reactions from the 

precursor SO2. The other major 

component of PM2.5 is organic carbon, 

which originates predominantly from 

biogenic emission sources. Nitrate, 

which is formed from the precursor 

NOX, is also a component of PM2.5. 

Crustal materials from windblown dust 

and elemental carbon from combustion 

sources are less significant contributors 

to total PM2.5. 

State and federal measures enacted in 

recent years have resulted in permanent 

emission reductions in particulate 

matter and its precursors. Most of these 

emission reductions are enforceable 

through regulations. A few nonregulatory measures also result in 

emission reductions. The federal 

measures that have been implemented 

include: 

Tier 2 vehicle standards and lowsulfur gasoline. In addition to requiring 

NOX controls, the Tier 2 rule reduced 

the allowable sulfur content of gasoline 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 3763 

to 30 parts per million (ppm) starting in 

January of 2006. Most gasoline sold 

prior to this had a sulfur content of 

approximately 300 ppm. 

Heavy-duty gasoline and diesel 

highway vehicle standards & Ultra LowSulfur Diesel Rule. On October 6, 2000, 

the U.S. EPA promulgated a rule to 

reduce NOX and VOC emissions from 

heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway 

vehicles that began to take effect in 

2004. 65 FR 59896. A second phase of 

standards and testing procedures began 

in 2007 to reduce particulate matter 

from heavy-duty highway engines, and 

reduce highway diesel fuel sulfur 

content to 15 ppm since the sulfur in 

fuel damages high efficiency catalytic 

exhaust emission control devices. The 

total program should achieve a 90 

percent reduction PM emissions and a 

95 percent reduction in NOX emission 

for new engines using low-sulfur diesel, 

compared to existing engines using 

higher-content sulfur diesel. 

Nonroad Large spark-ignition engines 

and recreational engines standards. The 

nonroad spark-ignition and recreational 

engine standards, effective in July 2003, 

regulate NOX, hydrocarbons, and carbon 

monoxide from groups of previously 

unregulated nonroad engines. These 

engine standards apply to large sparkignition engines (e.g., forklifts and 

airport ground service equipment), 

recreational vehicles (e.g., off-highway 

motorcycles and all-terrain-vehicles), 

and recreational marine diesel engines 

sold in the United States and imported 

after the effective date of these 

standards. 

When all of the nonroad sparkignition and recreational engine 

standards are fully implemented, an 

overall 72 percent reduction in 

hydrocarbons, 80 percent reduction in 

NOX, and 56 percent reduction in 

carbon monoxide emissions are 

expected by 2020. These controls will 

help reduce ambient concentrations of 

ozone, carbon monoxide, and fine 

particulate matter. 

Large nonroad diesel engine 

standards. Promulgated in 2004, this 

rule is being phased in between 2008 

and 2014. This rule will reduce sulfur 

content in nonroad diesel fuel and, 

when fully implemented, will reduce 

NOX and direct PM2.5 emissions by over 

90 percent from these engines. 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engine Standard. Promulgated in 2010, 

this rule regulates emissions of air 

toxics from existing diesel powered 

stationary reciprocating internal 

combustion engines that meet specific 

site rating, age, and size criteria. When 

all of the reciprocating internal 

combustion engine standards are fully 

implemented in 2013, EPA estimates 

that PM2.5 emissions from these engines 

will be reduced by approximately 2,800 

tons per year (tpy). 

Category 3 Marine Diesel Engine 

Standards. Promulgated in 2010, this 

rule establishes more stringent exhaust 

emission standards for new large marine 

diesel engines with per cylinder 

displacement at or above 30 liters 

(commonly referred to as Category 3 

compression-ignition marine engines) as 

part of a coordinated strategy to address 

emissions from all ships that effect U.S. 

air quality. Near-term standards for 

newly built engines will apply 

beginning in 2011, and long-term 

standards requiring an 80 percent 

reduction in NOX emissions will begin 

in 2016. 

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 recently 

promulgated CSAPR (76 FR 48208, 

August 8, 2011) to replace the Clean Air 

Interstate (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 (EGUs) 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 DC 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 benefits provided by 

CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 

1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

On December 30, 2011, the DC 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 DC Circuit 

issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. In 

that decision, it also ordered EPA to 

continue administering CAIR ‘‘pending 

. . . development of a valid 

replacement.’’ EME Homer City, 696 

F.3d at 38. The DC 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 March 29, 2013, to 

review the DC Circuit’s decision in EME 

Homer City, and on June 24, 2013, the 

U.S. Supreme Court granted the United 

States’ petition asking the Court to 

review the DC Circuit’s decision on 

CSAPR. Nonetheless, EPA intends to 

continue to act in accordance with the 

EME Homer City opinion. 

In light of these unique circumstances 

and for the reasons explained below, 

EPA proposes to approve the 

redesignation request and the related 

SIP revision for Floyd County in 

Georgia, including Georgia’s plan for 

maintaining attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Rome Area. 

To the extent that attainment is due to 

emission reductions associated with 

CAIR, EPA is here determining that 

those reductions are sufficiently 

permanent and enforceable for purposes 

of CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and 

175A. The air quality modeling analysis 

conducted for CSAPR demonstrates that 

the Rome Area would be able to 

maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

even in the absence of either CAIR or 

CSAPR. See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling 

Final Rule Technical Support 

Document,’’ App. B, B–39. This 

modeling is available in the docket for 

this proposed redesignation action. 

Nothing in the DC Circuit’s August 2012 

decision disturbs or calls into question 

that conclusion or the validity of the air 

quality analysis on which it is based. 

In addition, as directed by the DC 

Circuit, CAIR remains in place and 

enforceable until substituted by a valid 

replacement rule. EPA approved a 

modification to Georgia’s SIP on 

October 9, 2007, that addressed the 

requirements of CAIR for the purpose of 

reducing SO2 and NOX emissions (see 

72 FR 57202), and Georgia’s SIP 

redesignation request lists CAIR as a 

control measure. CAIR was thus in place 

and getting emission reductions when 

the Rome area began monitoring 

attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS. The quality-assured, certified 

monitoring data used to demonstrate the 

area’s attainment of the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS by the April 5, 2010 

attainment deadline was also impacted 

by CAIR. 

To the extent that Georgia is relying 

on CAIR in its maintenance plan, the 

recent directive from the DC 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3764 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 DC 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. 

Criteria (4)—The Rome Area Has a Fully 

Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant 

to Section 175A of the CAA 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the area has a 

fully approved maintenance plan 

pursuant to section 175A of the CAA 

(CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In 

conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the Rome Area to attainment 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, GA 

EPD submitted a SIP revision to provide 

for the maintenance of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS for at least 10 years after 

the effective date of redesignation to 

attainment. EPA believes this 

maintenance plan meets the 

requirements for approval under section 

175A of the CAA. 

a. What is required in a maintenance 

plan? 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the 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 10 

years after the Administrator approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after the redesignation, GA EPD must 

submit a revised maintenance plan 

demonstrating that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for the 10 

years following the initial 10-year 

period. To address the possibility of 

future NAAQS violations, the 

maintenance plan must contain such 

contingency measures, as EPA deems 

necessary, to assure prompt correction 

of any future 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

violations. The Calcagni Memorandum 

provides further guidance on the 

content of a maintenance plan, 

explaining that a maintenance plan 

should address five requirements: The 

attainment emissions inventory, 

maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring, verification of continued 

attainment, and a contingency plan. As 

is discussed below, EPA finds that GA 

EPD’s maintenance plan includes all the 

necessary components and is thus 

proposing to approve it as a revision to 

the Georgia SIP. 

b. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

The Rome Area attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on 

monitoring data for the 3-year period 

from 2007–2009. GA EPD has selected 

2007 as the attainment emission 

inventory year. The attainment 

inventory identifies a level of emissions 

in the Area that is sufficient to attain the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. GA EPD 

began development of the attainment 

inventory by first generating a baseline 

emissions inventory for the Rome Area. 

As noted above, the year 2007 was 

chosen as the base year for developing 

a comprehensive emissions inventory 

for direct PM2.5 and the PM2.5 precursors 

SO2 and NOX. Emissions projections to 

support maintenance through 2023 have 

been prepared for the years 2017 and 

2023. In addition, emissions have been 

calculated by interpolation for the years 

2014 and 2020. The projected inventory 

included with the maintenance plan 

estimates emissions forward to 2023, 

which is at the 10-year interval required 

in section 175(A) of the CAA. 

The emissions inventories are 

composed of four major types of 

sources: point, area, on-road mobile and 

non-road mobile. The 2007 inventory, 

with the exception of on-road 

emissions, was prepared for Georgia by 

the contractor for the Southeastern 

Modeling, Analysis, and Planning 

(SEMAP) project. Under the SEMAP 

project, emissions estimates are reported 

by county and source classification code 

(SCC). The SEMAP emissions 

inventories were developed using data 

from a number of sources, including 

state and local agencies and EPA’s 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI). GA 

EPD utilized the State’s own resources 

to develop the 2007 inventory of onroad mobile emissions. 

The 2007 SO2, NOx and PM2.5

emissions for the Rome Area, as well as 

the emissions for other years, were 

developed consistent with EPA 

guidance and are summarized in Tables 

2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the following 

subsection discussing the maintenance 

demonstration. 

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, the 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 

subsection below, Georgia’s 

maintenance plan submission expressly 

documents that the Area’s emissions 

inventories will remain below the 

attainment year inventories through 

2023. Projected emissions inventory 

levels in 2023 are well below the 

attainment year inventory levels, and it 

is highly improbable that they will 

suddenly increase and exceed 

attainment year inventory levels in 

2024. In addition, for the reasons set 

forth below, EPA believes that the 

Georgia’s submission, in conjunction 

with additional supporting information, 

further demonstrates that the Area will 

continue to maintain the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS at least through 2024. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 3765 

Thus, if EPA finalizes its proposed 

approval of the redesignation request 

and maintenance plans in 2014, the 

approval will be based upon this 

showing, in accordance with section 

175A, and EPA’s analysis described 

herein, that the Georgia’s maintenance 

plan provides for maintenance for at 

least ten years after redesignation. 

c. Maintenance Demonstration 

The June 21, 2012, final submittal 

includes a maintenance plan for the 

Rome Area. This demonstration: 

(i) Shows compliance with and 

maintenance of the annual PM2.5

standard by providing information to 

support the demonstration that current 

and future emissions of SO2, NOX and 

PM2.5 remain at or below 2007 

emissions levels. 

(ii) Uses 2007 as the attainment year 

and includes future emission inventory 

projections for 2017 and 2023. 

(iii) Identifies an ‘‘out year’’ at least 10 

years after EPA review and potential 

approval of the maintenance plan. Per 

40 CFR part 93, NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs 

were established for the last year (2023) 

of the maintenance plan. 

(iv) Provides, as shown in Tables 2, 3, 

4, 5, and 6 below, the actual and 

projected missions inventories, in tpy, 

for the Rome Area. 

TABLE 2—ACTUAL (2007), ESTIMATED (2014 AND 2020) AND PROJECTED (2017 AND 2023) POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS

FOR THE ROME AREA

[tons] 

Pollutant 2007 2014 2017 2020 2023 

SO2 ....................................................................................... 24,275 19,666 6,119 6,242 6,366 

NOX ...................................................................................... 10,165 8,267 7,453 7,660 7,866 

PM2.5 .................................................................................... 953 774 697 722 747 

TABLE 3—ACTUAL (2007), ESTIMATED (2014 AND 2020) AND PROJECTED (2017 AND 2023) NONPOINT SOURCES

EMISSIONS FOR THE ROME AREA

[tons] 

Pollutant 2007 2014 2017 2020 2023 

SO2 ....................................................................................... 758 784 794 807 819 

NOX ...................................................................................... 936 1,026 1,066 1,104 1,144 

PM2.5 .................................................................................... 1,855 2,072 2,164 2,249 2,333 

TABLE 4—ACTUAL (2007), ESTIMATED (2014 AND 2020) AND PROJECTED (2017 AND 2023) ONROAD MOBILE SOURCES

EMISSIONS FOR THE ROME AREA

[tons] 

Pollutant 2007 2014 2017 2020 2023 

SO2 ....................................................................................... 14.1 11.6 10.5 9.4 8.3 

NOX ...................................................................................... 3,378.3 2,270.9 1,796.2 1,321.6 847.0 

PM2.5 .................................................................................... 117.3 79.9 63.9 47.8 31.8 

TABLE 5—ACTUAL (2007), ESTIMATED (2014 AND 2020) AND PROJECTED (2017 AND 2023) NONROAD MOBILE SOURCE

EMISSIONS FOR THE ROME AREA

[tons] 

Pollutant 2007 2014 2017 2020 2023 

SO2 ....................................................................................... 29 9 1 1 1 

NOX ...................................................................................... 996 728 613 546 479 

PM2.5 .................................................................................... 66 48 40 36 31 

TABLE 6—ACTUAL (2007), ESTIMATED (2014 AND 2020) AND PROJECTED (2017 AND 2023) EMISSIONS FOR ALL SECTORS

FOR THE ROME AREA

[tons] 

Pollutant 2007 2014 2017 2020 2023 Change 2007– 

2023 

SO2 ........................................................ 25,276.1 20,470.6 6,924.5 7,059.4 7,194.3 72% decrease. 

NOX ....................................................... 15,475.3 12,291.9 10,928.2 10,631.6 10,336.0 33% decrease. 

PM2.5 ..................................................... 2,991.3 2,973.9 2,964.9 3,054.8 3,142.8 5% increase. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3766 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

The State’s submittal credits Georgia 

Rule 391–3–1–.02(2)(sss) as requiring 

flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 

controls on the majority of coal-fired 

EGUs in the State. The submittal also 

credits Georgia Rule 391–3–1– 

.02(2)(uuu) as requiring a 95 percent 

reduction in SO2 emissions from the 

majority of Georgia’s coal-fired EGUs, 

with the requirement being phased in 

from 2010 through 2016. Within the 

Rome Area, this rule requires a 95 

percent reduction of SO2 emissions from 

all four EGUs at plant Hammond, which 

is being phased in on individual units 

between 2011 and 2015. The rule also 

requires SO2 emission reductions from 

other coal-fired EGUs in north Georgia. 

EPA has not approved Georgia Rules 

391–3–1–.02(2)(sss) and 391–3–1– 

.02(2)(uuu) into Georgia’s SIP, and 

therefore, these rules are not federally 

enforceable. However, CAIR was one 

measure that led to air quality 

improvement in the Rome Area. As 

discussed above, EPA is interpreting 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)’s 

requirement that emission reductions be 

due to permanent and federally 

enforceable measures to include CAIR, 

because of the D.C. Circuit’s directive to 

leave CAIR in place until it is replaced 

by a new rule. Although modeling 

completed as part of the CSAPR 

rulemaking showed that the Area would 

continue to maintain the standard even 

in the absence of CAIR or CSAPR, to the 

extent that the Area’s maintenance of 

the standard relies on CAIR, EPA is 

proposing to find CAIR may be relied 

upon under CAA section 175A as well. 

Unlike the state-only rules discussed 

above, CAIR was approved into 

Georgia’s SIP. Although the state-only 

rules have more specific unit control 

requirements than the provisions of 

CAIR, the State implemented them in 

response to CAIR and they require 

emissions reductions in NOX and SO2

consistent with CAIR’s original 

schedule starting in 2009. Since the 

controls are already in the process of 

being installed to comply with both 

CAIR and the state rules, EPA regards 

the emission estimates based on the 

installation and operation of these 

controls to be both an accurate 

projection of how CAIR will continue to 

be implemented in the Rome Area and 

an appropriate basis upon which to 

project the emission inventory. 

As reflected in Table 6, future 

emissions for the relevant pollutants 

and precursors are expected to be below 

the ‘‘attainment level’’ emissions in 

2007, thus illustrating that the Macon 

Area is expected to continue to attain 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS through 

2023. In situations such as this where 

local emissions are the primary 

contributor to nonattainment, if the 

future projected emissions in the 

nonattainment area remain at or below 

the baseline emissions in the 

nonattainment area, then the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS should not be 

violated in the future. 

A maintenance plan requires the state 

to show that projected future year 

emissions will not exceed the level of 

emissions which led the Area to attain 

the NAAQS. Georgia has projected 

emissions as described previously and 

determined that emissions in the Macon 

Area will remain below those in the 

attainment year inventory for the 

duration of the maintenance plan. 

As noted above, EPA believes that 

several pertinent factors demonstrate 

that the Rome Area will continue to 

maintain the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS at least through the year 2023. 

These include the circumstances that (1) 

all of the state and federal regulatory 

requirements that enabled the Area to 

attain the NAAQS will continue to be in 

effect and enforceable after the 10-year 

maintenance period; (2) the most recent 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

annual PM2.5 design value (for the 

period 2009 to 2011) for the Area of 13.3 

mg/m3 is well below the standard of 15.0 

mg/m3; (3) as discussed in detail below, 

EPA is proposing in this action to 

approve Georgia’s determination that 

the direct PM2.5 and NOX contribution 

from motor vehicle emissions for the 

Area and thus does not expect such 

emissions to contribute significantly to 

future ambient PM2.5 levels; and (4) as 

noted above, several of the largest 

sources in the Area have been required 

by permanent and enforceable consent 

decrees to install controls that achieve 

reductions in SO2 and NOX emissions as 

well as reductions in direct PM2.5

emissions. Therefore, EPA expects the 

projected downward trend in pollutant 

emissions in the Rome Area from the 

2007 attainment year through the 2023 

maintenance year, as shown in Table 6 

above, to continue for at least the one 

additional year past 2024. 

d. Monitoring Network 

There is currently one monitor 

measuring PM2.5 in the Rome Area 

(Rome-Coosa Elementary School in 

Floyd County). GA EPD has committed 

to continue operation of the monitor in 

the Rome Area in compliance with 40 

CFR part 58 and have thus addressed 

the requirement for monitoring. EPA 

approved Georgia’s 2012 monitoring 

plan on October 16, 2012. 

e. Verification of Continued Attainment 

GA EPD has the legal authority to 

enforce and implement the 

requirements of the Rome Area 1997 

annual PM2.5 maintenance plan. This 

includes the authority to adopt, 

implement and enforce any subsequent 

emissions control contingency measures 

determined to be necessary to correct 

future PM2.5 attainment problems. 

GA EPD will track the progress of the 

maintenance plan by performing future 

reviews of triennial emission 

inventories for the Rome Area as 

required in the Air Emissions Reporting 

Rule (AERR) and Consolidated 

Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR). For 

these periodic inventories, GA EPD will 

review the assumptions made for the 

purpose of the maintenance 

demonstration concerning projected 

growth of activity levels. If any of these 

assumptions appear to have changed 

substantially, then GA EPD will reproject emissions for the Rome Area. 

f. Contingency Measures in the 

Maintenance Plan 

Section 175A of the CAA requires that 

a maintenance plan include such 

contingency measures as EPA deems 

necessary to assure that the state will 

promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. 

The maintenance plan should identify 

the contingency measures to be adopted, 

a schedule and procedure for adoption 

and implementation, and a time limit 

for action by GA EPD. A state should 

also identify specific indicators to be 

used to determine when the 

contingency measures need to be 

implemented. The maintenance plan 

must include a requirement that a state 

will implement all measures with 

respect to control of the pollutant that 

were contained in the SIP before 

redesignation of the area to attainment 

in accordance with section 175A(d). 

The contingency plan included in the 

submittal includes a triggering 

mechanism to determine when 

contingency measures are needed and a 

process of developing and 

implementing appropriate control 

measures. GA EPD will use actual 

ambient monitoring data as the 

triggering event to determine when 

contingency measures should be 

implemented. 

Georgia has identified a Tier I trigger 

as occurring when any of the following 

conditions occurs, as described in the 

State’s submittal for the Rome Area. 

• The previous calendar year’s annual 

mean PM2.5 concentration exceeds the 

standard by 1.5 mg/m3 or more; 

• The annual mean PM2.5

concentration in each of the previous 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 3767 

5 In a September 23, 2013, letter to EPA, the State 

reaffirmed its commitment to address and correct 

any violation of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS as 

expeditiously as practicable, and no later than 24 

months from the trigger activation. 

two consecutive calendar years exceeds 

the standard by 0.5 ug/m3 or more; 

• The total maintenance area SO2

emissions in the most recent NEI 

exceeds the corresponding attainmentyear inventory by more than 10.0 

percent; 

• The total maintenance area PM2.5

emissions in the most recent NEI 

exceeds the corresponding attainmentyear inventory by more than 30.0 

percent. 

GA EPD will evaluate a Tier I 

condition, if it occurs, as expeditiously 

as practicable to determine the causes of 

the ambient PM2.5 or emissions 

inventory increase and to determine if a 

Tier II condition is likely to occur. A 

Tier II trigger will be activated when 

any violation of the annual PM2.5

NAAQS at any federal reference method 

monitor in the Rome maintenance area 

is recorded, based on quality-assured 

monitoring data. In this event, GA EPD 

will conduct a comprehensive study to 

determine the cause of the ambient 

PM2.5 increase and to determine if the 

increase is likely to continue and will 

implement any required measures as 

expeditiously as practicable, taking into 

consideration the ease of 

implementation and the technical and 

economic feasibility of selected 

measures. 

The comprehensive study will be 

completed and submitted to EPA as 

expeditiously as practical but no later 

than nine months after the Tier I or Tier 

II trigger is activated, and the 

appropriate corrective measures will be 

adopted and implemented within 18 to 

24 months after the trigger occurs. If the 

study determines that additional 

measures are required, the State will 

adopt rules no later than 18 months 

following the date that the trigger is 

activated.5 The comprehensive 

measures will be selected from the 

following types of measures or from any 

other measure deemed appropriate and 

effective at the time the selection is 

made by GA EPD: 

• RACM for sources of SO2 and PM2.5; 

• Reasonably Available Control 

Technologies (RACT) for point sources 

of SO2 and PM2.5; 

• Expansion of RACM/RACT to areas 

of transport within the State; 

• Mobile source measures; and 

• Additional SO2 and/or PM2.5

reduction measures yet to be identified. 

In addition to the triggers indicated 

above, Georgia will monitor regional 

emissions through the CERR and AERR, 

and compare them to the projected 

inventories and the attainment year 

inventory. In the June 21, 2012, 

submittal, the State acknowledges that 

the contingency plan requires the 

implementation of all measures 

contained in the SIP for the Area prior 

to redesignation. The State also notes 

that these measures are currently in 

effect and may be evaluated by the State 

to determine if they are adequate or upto-date. 

EPA has concluded that the 

maintenance plan adequately addresses 

the five basic components of a 

maintenance plan: attainment emission 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring network, verification of 

continued attainment, and a 

contingency plan. Therefore, the 

maintenance plan SIP revision 

submitted by GA EPD for the Rome Area 

meets the requirements of section 175A 

of the CAA and is approvable. 

VI. What is the effect of the January 4, 

2013, D.C. Circuit decision regarding 

PM2.5 implementation under Subpart 4? 

a. Background 

As discussed in Section I of this 

action, the D.C. Circuit remanded the 

1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule to EPA 

on January 4, 2013, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 

F.3d 428. 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. 

b. Proposal on This Issue 

In this portion of the proposed 

redesignation, EPA addresses the effect 

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

the proposed redesignation. As 

explained below, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Court’s January 4, 

2013, decision does not prevent EPA 

from redesignating the Rome 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 Rome Area redesignation request 

and disregards the provisions of its 1997 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule recently 

remanded by the Court, the State’s 

request for redesignation of this area 

still qualifies for approval. EPA’s 

discussion takes into account the effect 

of the Court’s ruling on the area’s 

maintenance plan, which EPA views as 

approvable when subpart 4 

requirements are considered. 

c. Applicable Requirements for the 

Purpose of Evaluating the Redesignation 

Request 

With respect to the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, ruling rejected EPA’s 

reasons for implementing the PM2.5

NAAQS solely in accordance with the 

provisions of subpart 1, and remanded 

that matter to EPA, so that it could 

address implementation of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of Part D 

of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For 

the purposes of evaluating the Georgia’s 

redesignation request for the area, to the 

extent that implementation under 

subpart 4 would impose additional 

requirements for areas designated 

nonattainment, EPA believes that those 

requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of CAA section 

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

required to consider subpart 4 

requirements with respect to the Rome 

Area of 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 the plan and 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3768 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

6Applicable 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. 

7Sierra 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). 

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 already 

implemented or due at the time of 

attainment’’).6 In this case, at the time 

that Georgia 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 Rome Area redesignation, 

the subpart 4 requirements were not due 

at the time the State submitted the 

redesignation request is in keeping with 

the EPA’s interpretation of subpart 2 

requirements for subpart 1 ozone areas 

redesignated subsequent to the DC 

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 Act 

for this purpose. 

Second, a fundamental premise for 

redesignating a nonattainment area to 

attainment is that the area has attained 

the relevant NAAQS due to emission 

reductions from existing controls. Thus, 

an area for which a redesignation 

request has been submitted would have 

already attained the NAAQS as a result 

of satisfying statutory requirements that 

came due prior to the submission of the 

request. Absent a showing that 

unadopted and unimplemented 

requirements are necessary for future 

maintenance, it is reasonable to view 

the requirements applicable for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request as including only those SIP 

requirements that have already come 

due. These are the requirements that led 

to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, 

for redesignation approval, that a state 

also satisfy additional SIP requirements 

coming due after the state submits its 

complete redesignation request, and 

while EPA is reviewing it, would 

compel the state to do more than is 

necessary to attain the NAAQS, without 

a showing that the additional 

requirements are necessary for 

maintenance. 

In the context of this redesignation, 

the timing and nature of the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. 

EPA compound the consequences of 

imposing requirements that come due 

after the redesignation request is 

submitted. The State submitted its 

redesignation request on June 21, 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 request to 

comply now with requirements of 

subpart 4 that the Court announced only 

in January 2013 would be to give 

retroactive effect to such requirements 

when the State had no notice that it was 

required to meet them. The D.C. Circuit 

recognized the inequity of this type of 

retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. 

Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),7

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 Georgia by 

rejecting its redesignation request for an 

area that is already attaining the 1997 

PM2.5 standard and that met all 

applicable requirements known to be in 

effect at the time of the request. For EPA 

now to reject the redesignation request 

solely because the state did not 

expressly address subpart 4 

requirements of which it had no notice 

would inflict the same unfairness 

condemned by the Court in Sierra Club 

v. Whitman. 

d. Subpart 4 Requirements and the 

Rome Area Redesignation Request 

Even if EPA were to take the view that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision 

requires that, in the context of pending 

redesignations, subpart 4 requirements 

were due and in effect at the time the 

State submitted its redesignation 

request, EPA proposes to determine that 

the Rome Area still qualifies for 

redesignation to attainment. As 

explained below, EPA believes that the 

redesignation request for the Rome 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 3769 

8PM10 refers to particles nominally 10 

micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

9The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 

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

redesignation is discussed below. 10 I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, 

milestone requirements, contingency measures. 

11As explained above, EPA does 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. 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the Rome 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 8 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), 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, we are considering the Rome 

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 

1.9 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 4,10 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 for the 

Implementation of title I, 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 11 and thus are now past 

due, those requirements do not apply to 

an area that is attaining the 1997 PM2.5

standard for the purpose of evaluating a 

pending request to redesignate the area 

to attainment. EPA has consistently 

enunciated this interpretation of 

applicable requirements under section 

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

was published more than twenty years 

ago. Courts have recognized the scope of 

EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ in the redesignation 

context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

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

Moreover, even outside the context of 

redesignations, EPA has viewed the 

obligations to submit attainment-related 

SIP planning requirements of subpart 4 

as inapplicable for areas that EPA 

determines are attaining the standard. 

EPA’s prior ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ 

rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also 

governed by the requirements of subpart 

4, explain EPA’s reasoning. They 

describe the effects of a determination of 

attainment on the attainment-related SIP 

planning requirements of subpart 4. See 

‘‘Determination of Attainment for Coso 

Junction Nonattainment Area,’’ (75 FR 

27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso 

Junction proposed PM10 redesignation, 

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

Proposed and Final Determinations of 

Attainment for San Joaquin 

Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 

40954–55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 

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

short, EPA in this context has also long 

concluded that to require states to meet 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3770 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

12Under 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. 

13The Rome area has reduced VOC emissions 

through the implementation of various control 

programs including VOC Reasonably Available 

Control Technology regulations and various on-road 

and non-road motor vehicle control programs. 

superfluous SIP planning requirements 

is not necessary and not required by the 

CAA, so long as those areas continue to 

attain the relevant NAAQS. 

Elsewhere in this notice, EPA 

proposes to determine that the area has 

attained the 1997 PM2.5 standard. Under 

its longstanding interpretation, EPA is 

proposing to determine here that the 

area meets the attainment-related plan 

requirements of subparts 1 and 4. 

Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude 

that the requirements to submit an 

attainment demonstration under 

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

under section 172(c)d section 

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

189(c)(1), and contingency measure 

requirements under section 172(c)(9) are 

satisfied for purposes of evaluating the 

redesignation request. 

e. 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 DC 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 

Rome Area is consistent with the 

Court’s decision on this aspect of 

subpart 4. First, while the Court, citing 

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

area governed by subpart 4, a precursor 

is ‘presumptively regulated,’ ’’ the Court 

expressly declined to decide the specific 

challenge to EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule provisions 

regarding ammonia and VOC as 

precursors. The Court had no occasion 

to reach whether and how it was 

substantively necessary to regulate any 

specific precursor in a particular PM2.5

nonattainment area, and did not address 

what might be necessary for purposes of 

acting upon a redesignation request. 

However, even if EPA takes the view 

that the requirements of subpart 4 were 

deemed applicable at the time the state 

submitted the redesignation request, 

and disregards the implementation 

rule’s rebuttable presumptions regarding 

ammonia and VOC as PM2.5 precursors, 

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 Rome Area EPA, believes 

that doing so is consistent with 

proposing redesignation of the area for 

the 1997 PM2.5 standard. The Rome Area 

has attained the standard without any 

specific additional controls of VOC and 

ammonia emissions from any sources in 

the area. 

Precursors in subpart 4 are 

specifically regulated under the 

provisions of section 189(e), which 

requires, with important exceptions, 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of PM10 precursors.12

Under subpart 1 and EPA’s prior 

implementation rule, all major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors 

were subject to regulation, with the 

exception of ammonia and VOC. Thus 

we must address here whether 

additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC from major stationary sources are 

required under section 189(e) of subpart 

4 in order to redesignate the area for the 

1997 PM2.5 standard. As explained 

below, we do not believe that any 

additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC are required in the context of this 

redesignation. 

In the General Preamble, EPA 

discusses its approach to implementing 

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

With regard to precursor regulation 

under section 189(e), the General 

Preamble explicitly stated that control 

of VOCs under other Act requirements 

may suffice to relieve a state from the 

need to adopt precursor controls under 

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

proposal proposes to determine that the 

SIP has met the provisions of section 

189(e) with respect to ammonia and 

VOCs as precursors. This proposed 

determination is based on our findings 

that: (1) The Rome 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.13 In the alternative, 

EPA proposes to determine that, under 

the express exception provisions of 

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

redesignation of the area, which is 

attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard, at present ammonia and VOC 

precursors from major stationary 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to levels exceeding the 1997 PM2.5

standard in the Rome 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 3771 

14See, 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). 15See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA 

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

already attained due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions, and to 

demonstrate that controls in place can 

continue to maintain the standard. 

Thus, even if we regard the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, decision as calling for 

‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of ammonia 

and VOC for PM2.5 under the attainment 

planning provisions of subpart 4, those 

provisions in and of themselves do not 

require additional controls of these 

precursors for an area that already 

qualifies for redesignation. Nor does 

EPA believe that requiring the State 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.14 Courts have upheld this 

approach to the requirements of subpart 

4 for PM10.15 EPA believes that 

application of this approach to PM2.5

precursors under subpart 4 is 

reasonable. Because the Rome Area has 

already attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

with its current approach to regulation 

of PM2.5 precursors, EPA believes that it 

is reasonable to conclude in the context 

of this redesignation that there is no 

need to revisit the attainment control 

strategy with respect to the treatment of 

precursors. Even if the court’s decision 

is construed to impose an obligation, in 

evaluating this redesignation request, to 

consider additional precursors under 

subpart 4, it would not affect EPA’s 

approval here of Georgia’s request for 

redesignation of the Rome 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 Rome 

Area to attainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. 

In sum, even if Georgia were required 

to address precursors for the Rome Area 

under subpart 4 rather than under 

subpart 1, 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). 

f. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of 

Precursors 

With regard to the redesignation of 

the Rome Area, in evaluating the effect 

of the court’s remand of EPA’s 

implementation rule, which included 

presumptions against consideration of 

VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, 

EPA in this proposal is also considering 

the impact of the decision on the 

maintenance plan required under 

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

EPA proposes to determine that the 

State’s maintenance plan shows 

continued maintenance of the standard 

by tracking the levels of the precursors 

whose control brought about attainment 

of the 1997 PM2.5 standard in the Rome 

Area. EPA therefore believes that the 

only additional consideration related to 

the maintenance plan requirements that 

results from the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision is that of assessing the 

potential role of VOC and ammonia in 

demonstrating continued maintenance 

in this area. As explained below, based 

upon documentation provided by 

Georgia and supporting information, 

EPA believes that the maintenance plan 

for the Rome Area need not include any 

additional emission reductions of VOC 

or ammonia in order to provide for 

continued maintenance of the standard. 

First, as noted above in EPA’s 

discussion of section 189(e), VOC 

emission levels in this Area have 

historically been well-controlled under 

SIP requirements related to ozone and 

other pollutants. Second, total ammonia 

emissions throughout the Rome area are 

very low, estimated to be less than 1,000 

tons per year. See Table 7, below. This 

amount of ammonia 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 VOC and ammonia, 

is expected to increase over the 

maintenance period so as to interfere 

with or undermine the State’s 

maintenance demonstration. 

Georgia’s maintenance plan shows 

that emissions of SO2 and NOX are 

projected to decrease over the 

maintenance period in the Rome Area 

by 18,082 tpy and 5,139 tpy, 

respectively, while direct PM2.5

emissions are projected to increase by 

152 tpy. See Table 6, 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 

1,603 tpy and that ammonia emissions 

are projected to increase by 85 tpy 

between 2007 and 2020. Although 

ammonia emissions are projected to 

increase slightly between 2007 and 

2020, the large decrease in emissions of 

other precursors in comparison will 

keep the Area well below the standard. 

See Table 7, below. While the RIA 

emissions inventories are only projected 

out to 2020, there is no reason to believe 

that this overall downward trend would 

not continue through 2023. Given that 

the Rome Area is already attaining the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS even with 

the current level of emissions from 

sources in the area, the overall 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 

annual 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 2023, 

the overall emission reductions 

projected in 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 

PM2.5 standard during the maintenance 

period. 

In addition, available air quality data 

and modeling analyses show continued 

maintenance of the standard during the 

maintenance period. As noted in section 

V, above, the Rome Area recorded an 

annual average PM2.5 concentration of 

10.6 mg/m3 during 2012, the most recent 

year available with complete, qualityassured and certified ambient air 

monitoring data. This is well below the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 mg/m3. 

Moreover, the modeling analysis 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3772 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

16These emissions estimates were taken from the 

emissions inventories developed for the RIA for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

conducted for the RIA for the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS indicates that the design 

value for this area is expected to 

continue to decline through 2020. In the 

RIA analysis, the 2020 modeled design 

value for the Rome Area is 9.5 mg/m3. 

Given the significant decrease in overall 

precursor emissions projected through 

2023, it is reasonable to conclude that 

monitored PM2.5 levels in this area will 

also continue to decrease through 2023. 

TABLE 7—COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2020 VOC AND AMMONIA EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE

AREA 16

Sector 

VOC Ammonia 

2007 2020 Net change 2007 2020 Net change 

Nonpoint ................................................... 1,607.57 1,643.06 35.49 734.23 837.46 103.23 

Nonroad ................................................... 772.31 430.25 ¥342.06 0.72 0.84 0.12 

Onroad ..................................................... 1,971.44 672.57 ¥1,298.87 56.90 32.17 ¥24.73 

Point ......................................................... 2,208.40 2,210.38 1.98 30.27 36.46 6.19 

Total .................................................. 6,559.72 4,956.26 ¥1,603.46 822.12 906.93 84.81 

Thus, EPA believes that there is 

ample justification to conclude that the 

Rome Area should be redesignated, even 

taking into consideration the emissions 

of other precursors potentially relevant 

to PM2.5. After consideration of the DC 

Circuit’s January 4, 2013, decision, and 

for the reasons set forth in this notice, 

EPA continues to propose approval of 

the State’s maintenance plan and its 

request to redesignate the Rome Area to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

VII. What is EPA’s analysis of Georgia’s 

proposed NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the 

Rome area? 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects, such as the construction of 

new highways, must ‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., 

be consistent with) the part of the state’s 

air quality plan that addresses pollution 

from cars and trucks. Conformity to the 

SIP means that transportation activities 

will not cause new air quality 

violations, worsen existing violations, or 

delay timely attainment of the NAAQS 

or any interim milestones. If a 

transportation plan does not conform, 

most new 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. The 

regional emissions analysis is one, but 

not the only, requirement for 

implementing transportation 

conformity. Transportation conformity 

is a requirement for nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. Maintenance areas 

are areas that were previously 

nonattainment for a particular NAAQS 

but have since been redesignated to 

attainment with an approved 

maintenance plan for that NAAQS. 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIPs and maintenance plans for 

nonattainment areas. These control 

strategy SIPs (including RFP and 

attainment demonstration) and 

maintenance plans create MVEB for 

criteria pollutants and/or their 

precursors to address pollution from 

cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, 

MVEBs must be established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. A state 

may adopt MVEBs for other years as 

well. The MVEBs is the portion of the 

total allowable emissions in the 

maintenance demonstration that is 

allocated to highway and transit vehicle 

use and emissions. See 40 CFR 93.101. 

The MVEBs serves as a ceiling on 

emissions from an area’s planned 

transportation system. The MVEBs 

concept is further explained in the 

preamble to the November 24, 1993, 

Transportation Conformity Rule (58 FR 

62188). The preamble also describes 

how to establish the MVEBs in the SIP 

and how to revise the MVEBs. 

After interagency consultation with 

the transportation partners for the Rome 

Area, Georgia has elected to develop 

MVEBs for NOx and PM2.5 for the entire 

nonattainment area. Georgia has 

developed these MVEBs, as required, for 

the last year of its maintenance plan, 

2023. The MVEBs reflect the total onroad emissions for 2023, plus an 

allocation from the available NOx and 

PM2.5 safety margin. Under 40 CFR 

93.101, the term ‘‘safety margin’’ is the 

difference between the attainment level 

(from all sources) and the projected 

level of emissions (from all sources) in 

the maintenance plan. The safety 

margin can be allocated to the 

transportation sector; however, the total 

emissions must remain below the 

attainment level. The NOx and PM2.5

MVEBs and allocation from the safety 

margin were developed in consultation 

with the transportation partners and 

were added to account for uncertainties 

in population growth, changes in model 

vehicle miles traveled, and new 

emission factor models. The NOx and 

PM2.5 MVEBs for the Rome Area are 

identified in Table 8, below. 

TABLE 8—ROME AREA PM2.5 NOX

MVEBS (TPY) 

PM2.5 NOX

2023 Mobile Emissions .. 31.8 847 

2023 Safety Margin Allocated ........................... 6.2 147 .4 

2023 Total Mobile 

Budget ..................... 38.0 994 .4 

In an effort to accommodate future 

variations in Travel Demand Models 

(TDM) and the vehicle miles traveled 

forecast when no change to the network 

is planned, GA EPD consulted with the 

interagency consultation group, 

including U.S. EPA Region 4, to 

determine a reasonable approach to 

address this variation. The projected 

2023 on-road motor vehicle emissions 

for direct PM2.5 and NOX are 31.8 and 

847 tons, respectively. On-road 

emissions of SO2 are considered deminimis (70 FR 24280, 24283, May 6, 

2005), therefore, no budget for SO2 is 

required. 

A safety margin is necessary to 

accommodate the variabilities, or worstcase scenarios that can occur due to 

future planning assumptions. The 

worst-case daily motor vehicle 

emissions projection for PM2.5 is 19.5 

percent above the projected 2023 onroad emissions. In a worst-case scenario, 

the needed annual safety margin for the 

MVEB would be 6.2 tons resulting in an 

overall MVEB of 38 tons per year. The 

worst-case daily motor vehicle 

emissions projection for NOX is 17.4 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 3773 

percent above the projected 2023 onroad emissions. In a worst-case scenario, 

the needed annual safety margin for the 

MVEB would be 147.4 tons resulting in 

an overall MVEB of 994.4 tpy. 

Through this rulemaking, EPA is 

proposing to approve the MVEBs for 

NOX and PM2.5 for 2023 for the Rome 

Area into the Georgia SIP because EPA 

has determined that the Area maintains 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS with the 

emissions at the levels of the budgets. 

Once the MVEBs for the Rome Area are 

approved or found adequate (whichever 

is completed first), they must be used 

for future conformity determinations. In 

addition, as discussed in Section V 

above, EPA is proposing that if this 

approval is finalized in 2014, the Area 

will continue to maintain the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS through at least 

2024. After thorough review, EPA is 

proposing to approve the budgets 

because they are consistent with 

maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS through 2023. 

VIII. What is the status of EPA’s 

adequacy determination for the 

proposed NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for 

2023 for the Rome area? 

When reviewing submitted ‘‘control 

strategy’’ SIPs or maintenance plans 

containing MVEB, EPA may 

affirmatively find the MVEB contained 

therein adequate for use in determining 

transportation conformity. Once EPA 

affirmatively finds that the submitted 

MVEBs are adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes, the MVEBs must 

be used by state and federal agencies in 

determining whether proposed 

transportation projects conform to the 

SIP as required by section 176(c) of the 

CAA. 

EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining adequacy of a MVEBs are 

set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The 

process for determining adequacy 

consists of three basic steps: public 

notification of a SIP submission, a 

public comment period, and EPA’s 

adequacy determination. This process 

for determining the adequacy of 

submitted MVEBs for transportation 

conformity purposes was initially 

outlined in EPA’s May 14, 1999, 

guidance, ‘‘Conformity Guidance on 

Implementation of March 2, 1999, 

Conformity Court Decision.’’ EPA 

adopted regulations to codify the 

adequacy process in the Transportation 

Conformity Rule Amendments for the 

‘‘New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards and 

Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing 

Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments—Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’ 

on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). 

Additional information on the adequacy 

process for transportation conformity 

purposes is available in the proposed 

rule entitled ‘‘Transportation 

Conformity Rule Amendments: 

Response to Court Decision and 

Additional Rule Changes’’ 68 FR 38974, 

38984 (June 30, 2003). 

As discussed earlier, Georgia’s 

maintenance plan submission includes 

NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the Rome 

Area for 2023, the last year of the 

maintenance plan. EPA reviewed the 

NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs through the 

adequacy process, and the adequacy of 

the MVEBs was open for public 

comment on EPA’s adequacy Web site 

on July 26, 2012, found at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public 

comment period on adequacy for the 

2023 MVEBs for the Rome Area closed 

on August 27, 2012. EPA did not receive 

any comments on the adequacy of the 

MVEBs, nor did EPA receive any 

requests for the SIP submittal. 

EPA intends to make its 

determination on the adequacy of the 

2023 MVEBs for the Rome Area for 

transportation conformity purposes in 

the near future by completing the 

adequacy process that was started on 

July 26, 2012. After EPA finds the 2023 

MVEBs adequate or takes final action to 

approve them into the Georgia’s SIP, the 

new MVEBs for NOx and PM2.5 must be 

used for future transportation 

conformity determinations. For required 

regional emissions analysis years that 

involve 2023 or beyond, the applicable 

budgets will be the new 2023 MVEBs 

established in the maintenance plan. 

IX. Proposed Actions on the 

Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan SIP Revisions 

Including Approval of the NOX and 

PM2.5 MVEBs for 2023 for the Rome 

Area 

On April 5, 2011, EPA determined 

that the Rome Area was attaining the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 18650. 

EPA is now taking two separate but 

related actions regarding the Area’s 

redesignation and maintenance of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

First, EPA is proposing to determine, 

based on complete, quality-assured and 

certified monitoring data for the 2007– 

2009 monitoring period, and after 

review of all available data in AQS, that 

the Rome Area continues to attain the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to determine that the Rome 

Area has met the criteria under CAA 

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

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On this 

basis, EPA is proposing to approve 

Georgia’s redesignation request for the 

Rome Area. 

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

the maintenance plan for the Rome 

Area, including the PM2.5 and NOX

MVEBs for 2023 submitted by Georgia 

into the State’s SIP (under section 

175A). The maintenance plan 

demonstrates that the Area will 

continue to maintain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and the budgets meet all 

of the adequacy criteria contained in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). Further, as 

part of today’s action, EPA is describing 

the status of its adequacy determination 

for transportation conformity purposes 

for the PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for 2023 

under 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1). Within 24 

months from the effective date of EPA’s 

adequacy determination for the MVEBs 

or the effective date for the final rule 

approving the MVEBs into the Georgia’s 

SIP, whichever is earlier, the 

transportation partners will need to 

demonstrate conformity to the new NOX

and PM2.5 MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.104(e). 

If finalized, approval of the 

redesignation request would change the 

official designation of Rome Area for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 

CFR part 81, from nonattainment to 

attainment. 

X. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed 

actions? 

EPA’s proposed actions establish the 

basis upon which EPA may take final 

action on the issues being proposed for 

approval today. Approval of Georgia’s 

redesignation request would change the 

legal designation of the Rome Area for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 

40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to 

attainment. Approval of GA EPD’s 

request would also incorporate a plan 

for maintaining the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS in the Rome Area through 2023 

into the Georgia SIP. This maintenance 

plan includes contingency measures to 

remedy any future violations of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS and procedures 

for evaluation of potential violations. 

The maintenance plan also includes 

NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the Rome 

Area. Additionally, EPA is notifying the 

public of the status of its adequacy 

determination for the NOX and PM2.5

pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1). 

XI. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3774 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 15 / Thursday, January 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed 

actions merely approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and do not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, these proposed actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

action[s]’’ 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 the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in Georgia, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

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

Dated: December 19, 2013. 

Beverly H. Banister, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2014–01369 Filed 1–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS