Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 231 / Friday, November 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 71383 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0212; FRL–9756–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of 

the Parkersburg-Marietta Area to 

Attainment of the 1997 Annual 

Standard for Fine Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On February 29, 2012, the 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

submitted a request for EPA to approve 

the redesignation of the Ohio portion of 

the Parkersburg-Marietta West VirginiaOhio nonattainment area to attainment 

of the 1997 annual standard for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5). EPA is 

proposing to approve Ohio’s request. 

EPA is proposing to determine that the 

entire Parkersburg-Marietta area attains 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, based 

on the most recent three years of 

certified air quality data. EPA is 

proposing to approve, as revisions to the 

Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP), 

the state’s plan for maintaining the 1997 

annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) through 

2022 in the area. EPA is proposing to 

approve a 2005 emissions inventory for 

the Ohio portion of the ParkersburgMarietta area as meeting the 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act). Ohio’s maintenance plan 

submission includes an insignificance 

finding for the mobile source 

contribution of PM2.5 and nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) to Ohio’s portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta PM2.5 area for 

transportation conformity purposes; 

EPA agrees with this finding and 

proposes to determine the insignificance 

of the 2022 motor vehicle emission 

budget (MVEB) for the Ohio portion of 

the Parkersburg-Marietta area for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 31, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0212, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section (AR– 

18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

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

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012– 

0212. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Anthony 

Maietta, Environmental Protection 

Specialist, at (312) 353–8777 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony Maietta, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Control Strategies 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777, 

maietta.anthony@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplementary information section is 

arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What actions is EPA proposing to take? 

III. What is the background for these actions? 

IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to 

attainment? 

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

request? 

1. Attainment 

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D and Has a Fully Approved SIP 

Under Section 110(k) (Sections 

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

3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Due 

to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions Resulting From 

Implementation of the SIP and 

Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control 

Regulations and Other Permanent and 

Enforceable Reductions (Section 

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

4. Ohio Has a Fully Approved Maintenance 

Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the 

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

5. Insignificance Determination for the 

Mobile Source Contribution to PM2.5 and 

NOX

6. 2005 Comprehensive Emissions 

Inventory 

7. Summary of Proposed Actions 

VI. What are the effects of EPA’s proposed 

actions? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
71384 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 231 / Friday, November 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What actions is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to take several 

actions related to redesignation of the 

Ohio portion of the ParkersburgMarietta area to attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition to 

EPA’s December 2, 2011, determination 

that the area attained the NAAQS for 

PM2.5 by the applicable attainment date 

based on quality-assured, certified 

2007–2009 ambient air monitoring data 

(76 FR 75464), we are proposing to 

determine that the area continues to 

attain the NAAQS for PM2.5, based on 

quality-assured and certified ambient air 

monitoring data for 2009–2011, the most 

recent three years of quality-assured 

data for the area. EPA is proposing to 

find that Ohio meets the requirements 

for redesignation of the ParkersburgMarietta area to attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS under section 

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

proposing to approve Ohio’s request to 

change the legal designation of its 

portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area 

from nonattainment to attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This action 

would not change the legal designation 

of the West Virginia portion of the area, 

which will be redesignated in a separate 

rulemaking. 

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

Ohio’s annual PM2.5 maintenance plan 

for the Parkersburg-Marietta area as a 

revision to the Ohio SIP, including the 

insignificance determination for PM2.5

and NOX emissions for the mobile 

source contribution of the Ohio portion 

of the Parkersburg-Marietta area. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to approve 

the 2005 primary PM2.5, NOX and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emissions inventories as 

satisfying the requirement in section 

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

accurate and comprehensive emission 

inventory. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

approve the request from the State of 

Ohio to change the designation of 

Washington County (the Ohio portion of 

the Parkersburg-Marietta area) from 

nonattainment to attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This action 

would not change the legal designation 

of the West Virginia portion of the area, 

which would be redesignated in a 

separate rulemaking. 

III. What is the background for these 

actions? 

Fine particulate pollution can be 

emitted directly from a source (primary 

PM2.5) or formed secondarily through 

chemical reactions in the atmosphere 

involving precursor pollutants emitted 

from a variety of sources. Sulfates are a 

type of secondary particulate formed 

from SO2 emissions from power plants 

and industrial facilities. Nitrates, 

another common type of secondary 

particulate, are formed from combustion 

emissions of NOX from power plants, 

mobile sources and other combustion 

sources. 

The first air quality standards for 

PM2.5 were promulgated on July 18, 

1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated 

an annual standard at a level of 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) of 

ambient air, based on a three-year 

average of the annual mean PM2.5

concentrations at each monitoring site. 

In the same rulemaking, EPA 

promulgated a 24-hour PM2.5 standard at 

65 mg/m3, based on a three-year average 

of the annual 98th percentile of 24-hour 

PM2.5 concentrations at each monitoring 

site. 

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

published air quality area designations 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 

based on air quality data for calendar 

years 2001–2003. In that rulemaking, 

EPA designated the ParkersburgMarietta area as nonattainment for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard. 

On October 17, 2006, at 71 FR 61144, 

EPA retained the annual PM2.5 standard 

at 15 mg/m3 (2006 annual PM2.5

standard), but revised the 24-hour 

standard to 35 mg/m3, based again on the 

three-year average of the annual 98th 

percentile of the 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations. In response to legal 

challenges of the 2006 annual PM2.5

standard, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit) remanded this standard to EPA 

for further consideration. See American 

Farm Bureau Federation and National 

Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 

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

Parkersburg-Marietta area is designated 

as nonattainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard, today’s proposed action 

addresses redesignation to attainment 

only for this standard. 

On December 2, 2011, EPA issued a 

final determination that the entire 

Parkersburg-Marietta area has attained 

the 1997 PM2.5 standard by the 

applicable attainment date (76 FR 

75464). Ohio’s original submittal 

contained complete, quality-assured and 

certified air monitoring data for years 

through 2010. Based upon our review of 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

ambient air monitoring data from 2009– 

2011, we are proposing to determine 

that the area continues to attain the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Further, 

preliminary data for 2012 indicate that 

the data will continue to show the area 

in attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

IV. What are the criteria for 

redesignation to attainment? 

The CAA sets forth the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

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

redesignation provided that: (1) The 

Administrator determines that the area 

has attained the applicable NAAQS 

based on current air quality data; (2) the 

Administrator has fully approved an 

applicable SIP for the area under section 

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

determines that the improvement in air 

quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions 

resulting from implementation of the 

applicable SIP, Federal air pollution 

control regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions; (4) 

the Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area meeting 

the requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA; and (5) the state containing the 

area has met all requirements applicable 

to the area for purposes of redesignation 

under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. 

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

request? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

redesignation of the Ohio portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area to attainment 

of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and is 

proposing to approve Ohio’s 

maintenance plan for the area and other 

related SIP revisions. The bases for 

these actions follow. 

1. Attainment 

As noted above, in a rulemaking 

published on December 2, 2011, EPA 

determined that the ParkersburgMarietta area had attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. The basis and effect of 

this determination were discussed in 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 231 / Friday, November 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 71385 

1As defined in 40 CFR part 50 appendix N(1)(c). 

the proposed (76 FR 43634) and final 

(76 FR 75464) actions. The 

determination was based on qualityassured air quality monitoring data for 

2007–2009 showing the area had met 

the standard by the attainment date. The 

data have been certified by West 

Virginia, the state in which the monitors 

for the area are located. 

In this action, we are proposing to 

determine that the Parkersburg-Marietta 

area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS based upon the most recent 

three years of complete, certified and 

quality-assured data, as required by 

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

EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the 

annual primary and secondary PM2.5

standards are met when the annual 

arithmetic mean concentration, as 

determined in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix N, is less than or 

equal to 15.0 mg/m3 at all relevant 

monitoring sites in the area. 

EPA has reviewed the ambient air 

quality monitoring data in the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area, consistent 

with the requirements contained at 40 

CFR part 50. EPA’s review focused on 

data recorded in the EPA Air Quality 

System (AQS) database for the 

Parkersburg-Marietta PM2.5

nonattainment area from 2009–2011. 

EPA also considered preliminary data 

for 2012, which have not yet been 

certified. 

The Parkersburg-Marietta area has one 

monitor located in Wood County, West 

Virginia, that reported a design value 

from 2009–2011, the most recent three 

years of data, for PM2.5 that measured 

12.3 mg/m3 for the 1997 annual 

standard. The monitor in the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area recorded 

complete data in accordance with 

criteria set forth by EPA in 40 CFR part 

50, appendix N, where a complete year 

of air quality data comprises four 

calendar quarters, with each quarter 

containing data with at least 75 percent 

capture of the scheduled sampling days. 

Available data are considered to be 

sufficient for comparison to the NAAQS 

if three consecutive complete years of 

data exist. 

TABLE 1—THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES FOR THE PARKERSBURG-MARIETTA MONITOR WITH COMPLETE DATA

FOR THE 2007–2009, 2008–2010 AND 2009–2011 DESIGN VALUES 1 IN μg/m3

County Monitor 

Annual standard 

design value 

2007–2009 

(μg/m3) 

Annual standard 

design value 

2008–2010 

(μg/m3) 

Annual standard 

design value 

2009–2011 

(μg/m3) 

Wood, WV ................................................. Neale Elementary School 541071002 ..... 13.7 13.1 12.3 

EPA’s review of monitoring data from 

the 2007–2009, 2008–2010 and 2009– 

2011 monitoring periods supports EPA’s 

determination that the ParkersburgMarietta area has monitored attainment 

for each time period. Additionally, 

because the preliminary monitoring data 

for 2012 are consistent with the area’s 

continued attainment, EPA proposes to 

determine that the Parkersburg-Marietta 

area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard. 

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D and Has a Fully Approved SIP 

Under Section 110(k) (Sections 

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

We believe that Ohio has met all 

currently applicable SIP requirements 

for purposes of redesignation for the 

Ohio portion of the ParkersburgMarietta area under section 110 of the 

CAA (general SIP requirements). We are 

also proposing to find that the Ohio SIP 

meets all SIP requirements currently 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

under part D of title I of the CAA, in 

accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). 

We are proposing to find that all 

applicable requirements of the Ohio SIP 

for purposes of redesignation have been, 

in accordance with section 

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

this action EPA is proposing to approve 

Ohio’s 2005 emissions inventory as 

meeting the section 172(c)(3) 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

requirement. 

In making these proposed 

determinations, we have ascertained 

which SIP requirements are applicable 

for purposes of redesignation, and 

concluded that there are SIP measures 

meeting those requirements and that 

they are approved or will be approved 

by the time of final rulemaking. 

a. Ohio Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements for Purposes of 

Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of the 

Area Under Section 110 and Part D of 

the CAA 

i. Section 110 General SIP Requirements 

Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA 

contains the general requirements for a 

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

implementation plan submitted by a 

state must have been adopted by the 

state after reasonable public notice and 

hearing, and, among other things, must: 

include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CAA; provide 

for establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems 

and procedures necessary to monitor 

ambient air quality; provide for 

implementation of a source permit 

program to regulate the modification 

and construction of any stationary 

source within the areas covered by the 

plan; include provisions for the 

implementation of part C, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part 

D, New Source Review (NSR) permit 

programs; include criteria for stationary 

source emission control measures, 

monitoring and reporting; include 

provisions for air quality modeling; and 

provide for public and local agency 

participation in planning and emission 

control rule development. 

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

requires that SIPs contain measures to 

prevent sources in a state from 

significantly contributing to air quality 

problems in another state. EPA believes 

that the requirements linked with a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation are the relevant measures to 

evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. The transport SIP submittal 

requirements, where applicable, 

continue to apply to a state regardless of 

the designation of any one particular 

area in the state. Thus, we believe that 

these requirements should not be 

construed to be applicable requirements 

for purposes of redesignation. 

Further, we believe that the other 

section 110 elements described above 

that are not connected with 

nonattainment plan submissions and 

not linked with an area’s attainment 

status are also not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. A state remains subject to 

these requirements after an area is 

redesignated to attainment. We 

conclude that only the section 110 and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
71386 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 231 / Friday, November 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

part D requirements that are linked with 

a particular area’s designation are the 

relevant measures which we may 

consider in evaluating a redesignation 

request. This approach is consistent 

with EPA’s existing policy on 

applicability of conformity and 

oxygenated fuels requirements for 

redesignation purposes, as well as with 

section 184 ozone transport 

requirements. See Reading, 

Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176, 

October 10, 1996) and (62 FR 24826, 

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

Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, 

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

rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 

1995). See also the discussion on this 

issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour 

ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 

19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone 

redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 

2001). 

We have reviewed the Ohio SIP and 

have concluded that it meets the general 

SIP requirements under section 110 of 

the CAA to the extent they are 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA has previously 

approved provisions of Ohio’s SIP 

addressing section 110 requirements, 

including provisions addressing 

particulate matter, at 40 CFR 52.1870, 

respectively). 

On December 5, 2007, and September 

4, 2009, Ohio made submittals 

addressing ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

elements required under CAA section 

110(a)(2). EPA proposed approval of the 

December 5, 2007, submittal on April 

28, 2011, at 76 FR 23757, and published 

final approval on July 14, 2011, at 76 FR 

41075. The requirements of section 

110(a)(2), however, are statewide 

requirements that are not linked to the 

PM2.5 nonattainment status of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area. Therefore, 

EPA believes that these SIP elements are 

not applicable requirements for 

purposes of review of the state’s PM2.5

redesignation request. 

ii. Part D Requirements 

EPA is proposing to determine that, 

upon approval of the base year 

emissions inventories discussed in 

section V(6) of this rulemaking, the 

Ohio SIP will meet the SIP requirements 

for the Ohio portion of the ParkersburgMarietta area applicable for purposes of 

redesignation under part D of the CAA. 

Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 

172–176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic 

nonattainment requirements applicable 

to all nonattainment areas. 

Subpart 1 Section 172 

Requirements. 

For purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation request, the applicable 

section 172 SIP requirements for the 

Ohio portion of the ParkersburgMarietta area are contained in section 

172(c)(1)–(9). A thorough discussion of 

the requirements contained in section 

172 can be found in the General 

Preamble for Implementation of title I 

(57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). 

Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans 

for all nonattainment areas to provide 

for the implementation of all 

Reasonably Achievable Control 

Measures (RACM) as expeditiously as 

practicable and to provide for 

attainment of the primary NAAQS. EPA 

interprets this requirement to impose a 

duty on all nonattainment areas to 

consider all available control measures 

and to adopt and implement such 

measures as are reasonably available for 

implementation in each area as 

components of the area’s attainment 

demonstration. Because we are 

determining that the area has attained in 

this action, no additional measures are 

needed to provide for attainment, and 

section 172(c)(1) requirements are no 

longer considered to be applicable as 

long as the area continues to attain the 

standard until redesignation. (40 CFR 

51.1004(c).) 

The Reasonable Further Progress 

(RFP) requirement under section 

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

must be made toward attainment. This 

requirement is not relevant for purposes 

of redesignation because the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area has monitored 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. (General Preamble, 57 FR 

13564). See also 40 CFR 51.918. In 

addition, because the ParkersburgMarietta area has attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS and is no longer 

subject to an RFP requirement, the 

requirement to submit the section 

172(c)(9) contingency measures is not 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. Id. 

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission 

and approval of a comprehensive, 

accurate and current inventory of actual 

emissions. Ohio submitted a 2005 base 

year emissions inventory along with 

their redesignation request. As 

discussed below in section V.6., EPA is 

approving the 2005 base year inventory 

as meeting the section 172(c)(3) 

emissions inventory requirement for the 

Ohio portion of the ParkersburgMarietta area. 

Section 172(c)(4) requires the 

identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources in an area, 

and section 172(c)(5) requires source 

permits for the construction and 

operation of new and modified major 

stationary sources anywhere in the 

nonattainment area. EPA approved 

Ohio’s current NSR program on January 

10, 2003 (68 FR 1366). Nonetheless, 

since PSD requirements will apply after 

redesignation, the area need not have a 

fully-approved NSR program for 

purposes of redesignation, provided that 

the area demonstrates maintenance of 

the NAAQS without part D NSR. A 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ’’Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ Ohio has 

demonstrated that the ParkersburgMarietta area will be able to maintain 

the standard without part D NSR in 

effect; therefore, the state need not have 

a fully approved part D NSR program 

prior to approval of the redesignation 

request. The state’s PSD program will 

become effective in the ParkersburgMarietta area upon redesignation to 

attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, 

Michigan (60 FR 12467–12468, March 7, 

1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio 

(61 FR 20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 

1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 

53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand 

Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, 

June 21, 1996). 

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

contain control measures necessary to 

provide for attainment of the standard. 

Because attainment has been reached, 

no additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment. 

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

meet the applicable provisions of 

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

believe the Ohio’s SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Subpart 1 Section 176(c)(4)(D) 

Conformity SIP Requirements. 

The requirement to determine 

conformity applies to transportation 

plans, programs and projects developed, 

funded or approved under title 23 of the 

U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act 

(transportation conformity), as well as to 

all other Federally-supported or funded 

projects (general conformity). 

Section 176(c) of the CAA was 

amended by provisions contained in the 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU), which was 

signed into law on August 10, 2005 

(Public Law 109–59). Among the 

changes Congress made to this section 

of the CAA were streamlined 

requirements for state transportation 

conformity SIPs. State transportation 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 231 / Friday, November 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 71387 

conformity regulations must be 

consistent with Federal conformity 

regulations and address three specific 

requirements related to consultation, 

enforcement and enforceability. EPA 

believes that it is reasonable to interpret 

the transportation conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request under section 107(d) for two 

reasons. 

First, the requirement to submit SIP 

revisions to comply with the 

transportation conformity provisions of 

the CAA continues to apply to areas 

after redesignation to attainment since 

such areas would be subject to a section 

175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA’s 

Federal conformity rules require the 

performance of conformity analyses in 

the absence of Federally-approved state 

rules. Therefore, because areas are 

subject to the transportation conformity 

requirements regardless of whether they 

are redesignated to attainment and, 

because they must implement 

conformity under Federal rules if state 

rules are not yet approved, EPA believes 

it is reasonable to view these 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating a redesignation 

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

(6th Cir. 2001), upholding this 

interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 

62749–62750 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, 

Florida). 

Ohio has an approved transportation 

conformity SIP (72 FR 20945). Ohio is 

in the process of updating its approved 

transportation conformity SIP, and EPA 

will review its provisions when they are 

submitted. 

b. The Ohio Portion of the ParkersburgMarietta Area Has a Fully Approved 

Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of 

the CAA 

Upon final approval of Ohio’s 

comprehensive 2005 emissions 

inventory, EPA will have fully approved 

the Ohio SIP for the Ohio portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area under section 

110(k) of the CAA for all requirements 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard. EPA may rely on prior SIP 

approvals in approving a redesignation 

request (See page 3 of the September 4, 

1992, John Calcagni memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment’’; Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 

Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–990 (6th 

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

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

measures it may approve in conjunction 

with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 

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

passage of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has 

adopted and submitted, and EPA has 

fully approved, provisions addressing 

various required SIP elements under 

particulate matter standards. In this 

action, EPA is proposing to approve 

Ohio’s 2005 base year emissions 

inventory for the Parkersburg-Marietta 

area as meeting the requirement of 

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

1997 annual PM2.5 standard. 

c. Nonattainment Requirements 

Under section 172, states with 

nonattainment areas must submit plans 

providing for timely attainment and 

meeting a variety of other requirements. 

On July 16, 2008, Ohio submitted a 

state-wide attainment demonstration for 

PM2.5, including the ParkersburgMarietta area. However, pursuant to 40 

CFR 51.1004(c), EPA’s determination 

that the area has attained the 1997 PM2.5

annual standard suspends the 

requirement to submit certain planning 

SIPs related to attainment, including 

attainment demonstration requirements, 

the Reasonably Achievable Control 

Technology (RACT)-RACM requirement 

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

and attainment demonstration 

requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and 

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

requirement for contingency measures 

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

As a result, the only remaining 

requirement under section 172 to be 

considered is the emissions inventory 

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

discussed in a later section, EPA is 

proposing to approve the inventory that 

Ohio submitted as part of its 

maintenance plan as satisfying this 

requirement. 

No SIP provisions applicable for 

redesignation of the Ohio portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area are currently 

disapproved, conditionally approved or 

partially approved. If EPA approves 

Ohio’s Parkersburg-Marietta area PM2.5

emissions inventories as proposed, Ohio 

will have a fully approved SIP for all 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is 

Due to Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions Resulting From 

Implementation of the SIP and 

Applicable Federal Air Pollution 

Control Regulations and Other 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

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

EPA believes that Ohio has 

demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvement in the ParkersburgMarietta area is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

SIP, Federal measures and other stateadopted measures. 

In making this demonstration, Ohio 

has calculated the change in emissions 

between 2005, one of the years used to 

designate the Parkersburg-Marietta area 

as nonattainment, and 2008, one of the 

years the Parkersburg-Marietta area 

monitored attainment. The reduction in 

emissions and the corresponding 

improvement in air quality over this 

time period can be attributed to a 

number of regulatory control measures 

that the Parkersburg-Marietta area and 

contributing areas have implemented in 

recent years. 

a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls 

Implemented 

The following is a discussion of 

permanent and enforceable measures 

that have been implemented in the area: 

i. Federal Emission Control Measures 

Reductions in fine particle precursor 

emissions have occurred statewide and 

in upwind areas as a result of Federal 

emission control measures, with 

additional emission reductions expected 

to occur in the future. Federal emission 

control measures include the following. 

Tier 2 Emission Standards for 

Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards. 

These emission control requirements 

result in lower NOX and SO2 emissions 

from new cars and light duty trucks, 

including sport utility vehicles. The 

Federal rules were phased in between 

2004 and 2009. The EPA has estimated 

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

new vehicles will emit less NOX with 

the following percentage decreases: 

passenger cars (light duty vehicles)— 

77%; light duty trucks, minivans and 

sports utility vehicles—86%; and, larger 

sports utility vehicles, vans and heavier 

trucks—69% to 95%. EPA expects fleetwide average emissions to decline by 

similar percentages as new vehicles 

replace older vehicles. The Tier 2 

standards also reduced the sulfur 

content of gasoline to 30 parts per 

million (ppm) beginning in January 

2006. Most gasoline sold in Ohio prior 

to January 2006 had a sulfur content of 

about 500 ppm. 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. EPA 

issued this rule in July 2000. This rule 

includes standards limiting the sulfur 

content of diesel fuel, which went into 

effect in 2004. A second phase took 

effect in 2007 which reduced fine 

particle emissions from heavy-duty 

highway engines and further reduced 

the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 

15 ppm. The total program is estimated 

to achieve a 90% reduction in direct 

PM2.5 emissions and a 95% reduction in 

NOX emissions for these new engines 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
71388 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 231 / Friday, November 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2The court’s judgment is not final, as of October 

31, 2012, as the mandate has not yet been issued. 

using low sulfur diesel, compared to 

existing engines using higher sulfur 

content diesel. The reduction in fuel 

sulfur content also yielded an 

immediate reduction in sulfate particle 

emissions from all diesel vehicles. 

Nonroad Diesel Rule. In May 2004, 

EPA promulgated a new rule for large 

nonroad diesel engines, such as those 

used in construction, agriculture and 

mining equipment, to be phased in 

between 2008 and 2014. The rule also 

reduces the sulfur content in nonroad 

diesel fuel by over 99%. Prior to 2006, 

nonroad diesel fuel averaged 

approximately 3,400 ppm sulfur. This 

rule limited nonroad diesel sulfur 

content to 500 ppm by 2006, with a 

further reduction to 15 ppm by 2010. 

The combined engine and fuel rules will 

reduce NOX and PM2.5 emissions from 

large nonroad diesel engines by over 

90%, compared to current nonroad 

engines using higher sulfur content 

diesel. It is estimated that compliance 

with this rule will cut NOX emissions 

from nonroad diesel engines by up to 

90%. This rule achieved some emission 

reductions by 2008, and was fully 

implemented by 2010. The reduction in 

fuel sulfur content also yielded an 

immediate reduction in sulfate particle 

emissions from all diesel vehicles. 

Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engine 

and Recreational Engine Standards. In 

November 2002, EPA promulgated 

emission standards for groups of 

previously unregulated nonroad 

engines. These engines include large 

spark-ignition engines such as those 

used in forklifts and airport groundservice equipment; recreational vehicles 

using spark-ignition engines such as offhighway motorcycles, all-terrain 

vehicles and snowmobiles; and 

recreational marine diesel engines. 

Emission standards from large sparkignition engines were implemented in 

two tiers, with Tier 1 starting in 2004 

and Tier 2 in 2007. Recreational vehicle 

emission standards are being phased in 

from 2006 through 2012. Marine diesel 

engine standards were phased in from 

2006 through 2009. With full 

implementation of the entire nonroad 

spark-ignition engine and recreational 

engine standards, an 80% reduction in 

NOX expected by 2020. Some of these 

emission reductions occurred by the 

2008–2010 period used to demonstrate 

attainment, and additional emission 

reductions will occur during the 

maintenance period. 

1. Control Measures in Contributing 

Areas 

Given the significance of sulfates and 

nitrates in the Parkersburg-Marietta 

area, the area’s air quality is strongly 

affected by regulation of SO2 and NOX

emissions from power plants. 

NOX SIP Call. On October 27, 1998 

(63 FR 57356), EPA issued a NOX SIP 

Call requiring the District of Columbia 

and 22 states to reduce emissions of 

NOX. Affected states were required to 

comply with Phase I of the SIP Call 

beginning in 2004, and Phase II 

beginning in 2007. Emission reductions 

resulting from regulations developed in 

response to the NOX SIP Call are 

permanent and enforceable. 

CAIR and the Transport Rule. On May 

12, 2005, EPA published the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR), which requires 

significant reductions in emissions of 

SO2 and NOX from electric generating 

units to limit the interstate transport of 

these pollutants and the ozone and fine 

particulate matter they form in the 

atmosphere. See 76 FR 70093. The D.C. 

Circuit initially vacated CAIR, North 

Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 

2008), but ultimately remanded the rule 

to EPA without vacatur to preserve the 

environmental benefits provided by 

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

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

to the court’s decision, EPA issued the 

Transport Rule, also known as the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, to 

address interstate transport of NOX and 

SO2 in the eastern United States. See 76 

FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). On August 

21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a 

decision to vacate the Transport Rule. In 

that decision, it also ordered EPA to 

continue administering CAIR ‘‘pending 

the promulgation of a valid 

replacement.’’ EME Homer Generation, 

L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir., 

August 21, 2012).2

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 Washington County in 

Ohio, including Ohio’s plan for 

maintaining attainment of the PM2.5

standard in the Ohio portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta Area. The air 

quality modeling analysis conducted for 

the Transport Rule demonstrates that 

the Parkersburg-Marietta area would be 

able to attain the PM2.5 standard even in 

the absence of either CAIR or the 

Transport Rule. See ‘‘Air Quality 

Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 

Document,’’ App. B, B–62 to B–134. 

This modeling is available in the docket 

for this proposed redesignation action. 

In addition, CAIR remains in place 

and enforceable until substituted by a 

valid replacement rule. Ohio’s CAIR SIP 

was approved on September 25, 2009 

(74 FR 48857). As a result of CAIR, EPA 

projected that in 2009 emissions of NOX

would decrease from a baseline of 

264,000 tons per year (tpy) to 93,000 tpy 

while in 2010 emissions of SO2 would 

decrease from a baseline of 1,373,000 

tpy to 298,000 tpy within Ohio. And by 

2015, we projected emissions of NOX

would decrease to 83,000 tpy while 

emissions of SO2 would decrease to 

208,000 tpy within Ohio (http:// 

www.epa.gov/CAIR/oh.html). The 

monitoring data used to demonstrate the 

area’s attainment of the 1997 Annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS by the April 2010 

attainment deadline was also impacted 

by CAIR. To the extent that Ohio is 

relying on CAIR in its maintenance 

plan, the recent directive from the D.C. 

Circuit in EME Homer ensures that the 

reductions associated with CAIR will be 

permanent and enforceable for the 

necessary time period. EPA has been 

ordered by the court to develop a new 

rule 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. CAIR thus cannot be replaced 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 Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) if appropriate. These steps 

alone will take many years, even with 

EPA and the states acting expeditiously. 

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 the Transport 

Rule and requiring EPA to continue 

administering CAIR, the D.C. Circuit 

emphasized that the consequences of 

vacating CAIR ‘‘might be more severe 

now in light of the reliance interests 

accumulated over the intervening four 

years.’’ EME Homer, slip op. at 60. 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 231 / Friday, November 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 71389 

3Periodic emission inventories are derived by 

states every three years and reported to the EPA. 

These periodic emission inventories are required by 

the Federal Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule, 

codified at 40 CFR Subpart A. EPA revised these 

and other emission reporting requirements in a final 

rule published on December 17, 2008, at 73 FR 

76539. 

forced to impose additional, redundant 

reductions on top of those achieved by 

CAIR. EPA believes this is precisely the 

type of irrational result the court sought 

to avoid by ordering EPA to continue 

administering CAIR. For these reasons 

also, EPA believes it is appropriate to 

allow states to rely on CAIR, and the 

existing emissions reductions achieved 

by CAIR, as sufficiently permanent and 

enforceable for purposes such as 

redesignation. Following promulgation 

of the replacement rule, EPA will 

review SIPs as appropriate to identify 

whether there are any issues that need 

to be addressed. 

b. Emission Reductions 

Ohio developed emissions inventories 

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

one of the years used to designate the 

area as nonattainment, and 2008, one of 

the years the Parkersburg-Marietta area 

monitored attainment of the standard. 

Electric Generating Unit (EGU) SO2

and NOX emissions were derived from 

EPA’s Clean Air Market’s acid rain 

database. These emissions reflect Ohio 

and West Virginia NOX emission 

budgets resulting from EPA’s NOX SIP 

call. The 2008 emissions from EGUs 

reflect Ohio’s emission caps under 

CAIR. All other point source emissions 

were obtained from Ohio’s source 

facility emissions reporting. 

Area source emissions in the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area for 2005 were 

taken from periodic emissions 

inventories.3 These 2005 area source 

emission estimates were extrapolated to 

2008. Source growth factors were 

supplied by the Lake Michigan Air 

Directors Consortium (LADCO). 

Nonroad mobile source emissions 

were extrapolated from nonroad mobile 

source emissions reported in EPA’s 

2005 National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI). Contractors were employed by 

LADCO to estimate emissions for 

commercial marine vessels and 

railroads. 

On-road mobile source emissions 

were calculated using EPA’s mobile 

source emission factor model, 

MOVES2010a, in conjunction with 

transportation model results developed 

by the local Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (MPO), the WoodWashington-Wirt Interstate Planning 

Commission (WWW). 

All emissions estimates discussed 

below were documented in the 

submittal and appendices of Ohio’s 

redesignation request submittal from 

February 29, 2012. For these data and 

additional emissions inventory data, the 

reader is referred to EPA’s digital docket 

for this rule, http:// 

www.regulations.gov, for docket number 

EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0212, which 

includes digital copies of Ohio’s 

submittal. 

Emissions data in tpy for the entire 

Parkersburg-Marietta area are shown in 

Tables 2 and 3, below. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF 2005 EMISSIONS FOR THE ENTIRE PARKERSBURG-MARIETTA AREA BY SOURCE TYPE (TPY) 

SO2 NOX PM2.5

Point (EGU) ............................................................................................................... 193,252.79 28,455.23 1,745.04 

Non-EGU ................................................................................................................... 16,055.73 3,332.23 847.6 

On-road ...................................................................................................................... 58.79 5,200.52 173.49 

Nonroad ..................................................................................................................... 74.64 870.68 80.7 

Area ........................................................................................................................... 823.36 1,047.18 1,213.27 

MAR ........................................................................................................................... 141.75 2,547.49 86.64 

Total Parkersburg-Marietta ................................................................................. 210,407.06 41,453.33 4,146.74 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF 2005 EMISSIONS FROM THE NON-ATTAINMENT YEAR AND 2008 EMISSIONS FOR AN

ATTAINMENT YEAR FOR THE ENTIRE PARKERSBURG-MARIETTA AREA (TPY) 

2005 2008 Net change 

(2005–2008) 

PM2.5 .......................................................................................................................... 4,146.74 3,796.59 ¥350.15 

NOX ............................................................................................................................ 41,453.33 35,756.31 ¥5,967.02 

SO2 ............................................................................................................................ 210,407.06 159,593.17 ¥50,813.89 

Table 3 shows that in the entire 

Parkersburg-Marietta area reduced 

direct PM2.5 emissions by 350.15 tons, 

NOX emissions by 5,967.02 tons and 

SO2 emissions by 50,813.89 tons 

between 2005, a nonattainment year, 

and 2008, an attainment year. 

Emissions data in tpy for Washington 

County, Ohio (the Ohio portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area) are shown in 

Tables 4, and 5, below. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF 2005 NON-ATTAINMENT YEAR EMISSIONS FOR THE OHIO PORTION OF THE PARKERSBURGMARIETTA AREA BY SOURCE TYPE (TPY) 

SO2 NOX PM2.5

Point (EGU) ..................................................................................................................... 140,957.01 16,137.09 384.81 

Non-EGU ......................................................................................................................... 5,200.90 1,748.86 472.37 

On-road ............................................................................................................................ 26.97 2,687.09 90.45 

Nonroad ........................................................................................................................... 41.04 425.97 35.53 

Area ................................................................................................................................. 9.78 168.44 148.43 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
71390 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 231 / Friday, November 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF 2005 NON-ATTAINMENT YEAR EMISSIONS FOR THE OHIO PORTION OF THE PARKERSBURGMARIETTA AREA BY SOURCE TYPE (TPY)—Continued 

SO2 NOX PM2.5

MAR ................................................................................................................................. 44.48 500.78 11.76 

Total Parkersburg-Marietta ....................................................................................... 146,280.18 21,668.23 1,143.35 

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF 2005 EMISSIONS FROM THE NON-ATTAINMENT YEAR AND 2008 EMISSIONS FOR AN

ATTAINMENT YEAR FOR THE OHIO PORTION OF THE PARKERSBURG-MARIETTA AREA (TPY) 

2005 2008 Net change 

(2005–2008) 

PM2.5 ................................................................................................................................ 1,143.35 1,203.35 +60.00 

NOX .................................................................................................................................. 21,668.23 22,365.96 +697.73 

SO2 .................................................................................................................................. 146,280.18 138,786.24 ¥7,493.94 

Table 5 shows that while NOX and 

PM2.5 emissions rose by 697.73 tpy and 

60 tpy, respectively, the Ohio portion of 

the Parkersburg-Marietta area reduced 

SO2 emissions by 7,493.94 tpy between 

2005, a nonattainment year and 2008, an 

attainment year. Despite NOX and PM2.5

emissions increasing in the Ohio 

portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area 

between 2005 and 2008, the area 

demonstrated attainment of the NAAQS 

in 2008, as the combined ParkersburgMarietta area reduced NOX emissions by 

5,697 tpy and PM2.5 by 350.15 tpy 

between 2005 and 2008. The state 

submission includes multiple lines of 

evidence to show that even with the 

increase in NOX and PM2.5 the area has 

still reached attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS and will continue 

to maintain that designation into the 

future due to multiple actions on the 

state’s behalf. The weight of evidence 

submitted by the state contains 

modeling, monitoring and trend 

analysis. The trend analysis for the area 

shows a steady trend of declining PM2.5

monitored data, with a significant drop 

in concentrations beginning in 2006. 

Since meteorology can play a large part 

in dispersion of PM2.5, which can 

greatly affect monitored concentrations, 

LADCO and the state have normalized 

the data to remove meteorological 

effects using a statistical analysis, the 

state has shown in their submission that 

the concentrations observed are due to 

real reductions in PM2.5 and its 

precursors, and not just meteorological 

effects. In addition, control of emissions 

from local power plants through local 

and national programs have impacted 

and will continue to impact the area, as 

we will describe below. 

In 2008, American Electric Power’s 

Muskingum River Station in 

Washington County, Ohio, implemented 

the continuous operation of an 

advanced NOX control device on their 

largest of five units (unit #5), as part of 

a federally-enforceable consent decree. 

The Muskingum River Station is also 

required to retire, repower or retrofit all 

remaining units by 2015. Initial plans 

provided by the Muskingum River 

Station to Ohio indicate that unit #5 

will also install a flue gas 

desulfurization device in addition to its 

consent decree-mandated NOX control 

device. Another local power plant, 

American Municipal Power’s R.H. 

Gorsuch Station in Washington County, 

permanently shut down at the end of 

2010, and would require an approvable 

permit to restart. This facility operated 

four 53 megawatt (MW) units. The result 

of federally-mandated consent decree 

actions and the shutdown of a power 

plant demonstrate that NOX reductions 

from power plants in the ParkersburgMarietta area have occurred and will 

continue to occur in the future. 

Based on the information summarized 

above, Ohio has adequately 

demonstrated that the improvement in 

air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions. 

4. Ohio Has a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 

175A of the CAA (Section 

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

In conjunction with Ohio’s request to 

redesignate the Ohio portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta nonattainment 

area to attainment status, Ohio has 

submitted a SIP revision to provide for 

maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS in the area through 2022. 

a. What is required in a maintenance 

plan? 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the required elements of a maintenance 

plan for areas seeking redesignation 

from nonattainment to attainment. 

Under section 175A, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least ten 

years after EPA approves a 

redesignation to attainment. Eight years 

after redesignation, the state must 

submit a revised maintenance plan 

which demonstrates that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for ten years 

following the initial ten-year 

maintenance period. To address the 

possibility of future NAAQS violations, 

the maintenance plan must contain 

contingency measures with a schedule 

for implementation as EPA deems 

necessary to assure prompt correction of 

any future annual PM2.5 violations. 

The September 4, 1992, memorandum 

from John Calcagni, entitled 

‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ 

(Calcagni Memorandum) provides 

additional guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan. The memorandum 

states that a maintenance plan should 

address the following items: the 

attainment emissions inventories, a 

maintenance demonstration showing 

maintenance for the ten years of the 

maintenance period, a commitment to 

maintain the existing monitoring 

network, factors and procedures to be 

used for verification of continued 

attainment of the NAAQS and a 

contingency plan to prevent or correct 

future violations of the NAAQS. 

b. Attainment Inventory 

Ohio developed emissions inventories 

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

one of the years in the period during 

which the Parkersburg-Marietta area 

monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard, as described 

previously. The attainment levels of 

emissions for the entire area, as well as 

the attainment levels of emissions for 

the Ohio portion of the area were 

summarized in Tables 3 and 5, above. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 231 / Friday, November 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 71391 

c. Demonstration of Maintenance 

Along with the redesignation request, 

Ohio submitted a revision to its PM2.5

SIP to include a maintenance plan for 

the Parkersburg-Marietta area, as 

required by section 175A of the CAA. 

Section 175A requires a State seeking 

redesignation to attainment to submit a 

SIP revision to provide for the 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the area 

‘‘for at least 10 years after the 

redesignation.’’ EPA has interpreted this 

as a showing of maintenance ‘‘for a 

period of ten years following 

redesignation.’’ Calcagni Memorandum, 

p. 9. Where the emissions inventory 

method of showing maintenance is 

used, its purpose is to show that 

emissions during the maintenance 

period will not increase over the 

attainment year inventory. Calcagni 

Memorandum, pp. 9–10. 

As discussed in detail in the section 

below, the state’s maintenance plan 

submission expressly documents that 

the area’s emissions inventories will 

remain below the attainment year 

inventories through 2022. In addition, 

for the reasons set forth below, EPA 

believes that the state’s submission, in 

conjunction with additional supporting 

information, further demonstrates that 

the area will continue to maintain the 

PM2.5 standard at least through 2023. 

Thus, if EPA finalizes its proposed 

approval of the redesignation request 

and maintenance plans in 2013, it is 

based on a showing, in accordance with 

section 175A, that the state’s 

maintenance plan provides for 

maintenance for at least ten years after 

redesignation. 

Ohio’s plan demonstrates 

maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard through 2022 by showing that 

current and future emissions of NOX, 

directly emitted PM2.5 and SO2 for the 

area remain at or below attainment year 

emission levels. A maintenance 

demonstration need not be based on 

modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F. 3d 

426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club v. EPA, 

375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 

66 FR 53094, 53099–53100 (October 19, 

2001), and 68 FR 25413, 25430–25432 

(May 12, 2003). 

Ohio’s submission uses emissions 

inventory projections for the years 2015 

and 2022 to demonstrate maintenance 

for the Ohio portion of the ParkersburgMarietta area. The projected emissions 

were estimated by Ohio, with assistance 

from LADCO and WWW using the 

MOVES2010a model. Projection of 

inventory emissions was done for the 

2015 interim year emissions using 

estimates based on the 2009 and 2018 

LADCO modeling inventory, using 

LADCO’s growth factors, for all sectors. 

The 2022 maintenance year emissions 

are based on emissions estimates from 

the 2018 LADCO modeling. Table 7 

shows the 2008 attainment base year 

emission estimates and the 2015 and 

2022 emission projections for the entire 

tri-state Parkersburg-Marietta area that 

Ohio provided in its February 29, 2012, 

submission. 

TABLE 6—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015 AND 2022 NOX, DIRECT PM2.5 AND SO2 EMISSION TOTALS (TPY) FOR THE OHIO

PORTION OF THE PARKERSBURG-MARIETTA AREA

SO2 NOX PM2.5

2008 (baseline) .......................................................................................................... 138,786.24 22,365.96 1,203.35 

2015 ........................................................................................................................... 67,625.84 11,439.41 1,198.61 

2022 ........................................................................................................................... 37,351.17 6,417.53 1,181.01 

Change ...................................................................................................................... ¥101,435.07 ¥15,948.43 ¥22.34 

2008–2022 ................................................................................................................. 1 73 1 71 1 2 

1 % decrease. 

Table 6 shows that the Ohio portion 

of the Parkersburg-Marietta area will 

reduce NOX emissions by 15,948.43 tpy 

between 2008 and the maintenance 

projection to 2022, direct PM2.5

emissions by 22.34 tpy, and reduced 

SO2 emissions by 101,435.07 tpy 

between 2008 and 2022. The 2022 

projected emissions levels are 

significantly below attainment year 

inventory levels, and based on the rate 

of decline, it is highly improbable that 

any increases in these levels will occur 

in 2023 and beyond. 

EPA has done analysis of the areas 

emissions, and has concluded that the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area’s emissions 

can be expected to stay well below the 

level of emissions from their attainment 

year emissions inventory. First, EPA has 

determined that the overall net rate of 

decline in emissions of PM2.5, NOX and 

SO2 projected from the attainment year 

2008 through 2022 are approximately 

1.59 tpy, 1139.17 tpy and 7246.10 tpy, 

respectively. EPA has also determined 

that no control measures taken into 

account in the projected analysis will 

end in 2023, nor does EPA expect any 

change in growth for the ParkersburgMarietta area for the maintenance year 

2023. The net rates of decline, coupled 

with continued control and growth 

factors, indicate that emissions 

inventory levels will not only 

significantly decline between 2008 and 

2022, but that the reductions will 

continue into 2023 and beyond. Second, 

EPA notes that the rate of emissions 

decline is consistent with monitored 

and projected air quality trends. As 

Table 1 demonstrates, monitored PM2.5

design value concentrations in 

Parkersburg-Marietta are well below the 

NAAQS in the years beyond 2008, an 

attainment year for the area. Further, 

those values are trending downward as 

time progresses. Based on the future 

projections of emissions in 2015 and 

2022 showing significant emissions 

reductions in direct PM2.5, NOX and 

SO2, it is very unlikely that monitored 

PM2.5 values in 2023 and beyond will 

show violations of the NAAQS. 

Additionally, the 2009–2011 design 

value of 12.3 mg/m3 provides a sufficient 

margin in the unlikely event emissions 

rise slightly in the future. We are 

proposing to find the mobile source 

contribution to these emissions 

insignificant (see section V(5) of this 

action for further discussion), and the 

mobile source contribution is expected 

to remain insignificant in 2023 and 

beyond because of fleet turnover and 

engine emission standards in upcoming 

years that will result in cleaner vehicles 

and cleaner fuels. 

As described in section V(3)(b) of this 

action, the result of federally-mandated 

consent decree actions and the 

shutdown of a power plant demonstrate 

that NOX reductions from power plants 

in the Parkersburg-Marietta area have 

occurred and are mandated to continue 

to occur in 2023 and beyond. Thus, the 

emissions inventories set forth in Table 

6 show that the area will continue to 

maintain the annual PM2.5 standard 

during the maintenance period and at 

least through 2023. These consent 

decree actions are significant controls of 

NOX and SO2, along with 

implementation of Ohio’s SIP approved 

CAIR controls for the area. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
71392 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 231 / Friday, November 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

In light of the unique circumstances 

surrounding CAIR and the Transport 

Rule discussed in section V(3)(a)(i)(1) of 

this action, and for the reasons 

explained below, EPA proposes to 

approve the redesignation request and 

the related SIP revision for Washington 

County in Ohio, including Ohio’s plan 

for maintaining attainment of the PM2.5

standard in the Ohio portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta Area. The air 

quality modeling analysis conducted for 

the Transport Rule demonstrates that 

the Parkersburg-Marietta area would be 

able to attain the PM2.5 standard even in 

the absence of either CAIR or the 

Transport Rule. See ‘‘Air Quality 

Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 

Document,’’ App. B, B–62 to B–134. 

This modeling is available in the docket 

for this proposed redesignation action. 

In addition, CAIR remains in place 

and enforceable until substituted by a 

valid replacement rule. Ohio’s CAIR SIP 

was approved on September 25, 2009 

(74 FR 48857). As a result of CAIR, EPA 

projected that in 2009 emissions of NOX

would decrease from a baseline of 

264,000 tpy to 93,000 tpy while in 2010 

emissions of SO2 would decrease from 

a baseline of 1,373,000 tpy to 298,000 

tpy within Ohio. And by 2015, we 

project emissions of NOX will decrease 

to 83,000 tpy while emissions of SO2

will decrease to 208,000 tpy within 

Ohio (http://www.epa.gov/CAIR/ 

oh.html). The monitoring data used to 

demonstrate the area’s attainment of the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the April 

2010 attainment deadline was also 

impacted by CAIR. To the extent that 

Ohio is relying on CAIR in its 

maintenance plan, the recent directive 

from the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer 

ensures that the reductions associated 

with CAIR will be permanent and 

enforceable for the necessary time 

period. EPA has been ordered by the 

court to develop a new rule 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. 

CAIR thus cannot be replaced 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. These 

steps alone will take many years, even 

with EPA and the states acting 

expeditiously. 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 the Transport 

Rule and requiring EPA to continue 

administering CAIR, the D.C. Circuit 

emphasized that the consequences of 

vacating CAIR ‘‘might be more severe 

now in light of the reliance interests 

accumulated over the intervening four 

years.’’ EME Homer, slip op. at 60. 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. 

Based on the information summarized 

above, Ohio has adequately 

demonstrated maintenance of the PM2.5

standard in this area for a period 

extending in excess of ten years from 

expected final action on Ohio’s 

redesignation request. 

d. Monitoring Network 

Ohio’s plan includes a commitment to 

continue working with West Virginia to 

operate its EPA-approved monitoring 

network, as necessary to demonstrate 

ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. 

Ohio currently does not operate a PM2.5

monitor in Washington County to 

monitor the Ohio portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area. West Virginia 

currently operates one monitor in Wood 

County for the Parkersburg-Marietta 

area. 

e. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Ohio remains obligated to continue to 

quality-assure monitoring data and enter 

all data into the Air Quality System in 

accordance with Federal guidelines. 

Ohio will use these data, supplemented 

with additional information as 

necessary, to assure that the area 

continues to attain the standard. Ohio 

will also continue to develop and 

submit periodic emission inventories as 

required by the Federal Consolidated 

Emissions Reporting Rule (67 FR 39602, 

June 10, 2002) to track future levels of 

emissions. Both of these actions will 

help to verify continued attainment in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. 

f. Contingency Plan 

The contingency plan provisions are 

designed to promptly correct or prevent 

a violation of the NAAQS that might 

occur after redesignation of an area to 

attainment. Section 175A of the CAA 

requires that a maintenance plan 

include such contingency measures as 

EPA deems necessary to assure that the 

state will promptly correct a violation of 

the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation. The maintenance plan 

should identify the contingency 

measures to be adopted, a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation of the contingency 

measures, and a time limit for action by 

the state. The state should also identify 

specific indicators to be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be adopted and 

implemented. The maintenance plan 

must include a requirement that the 

state will implement all measures with 

respect to control of the pollutant(s) that 

were contained in the SIP before 

redesignation of the area to attainment. 

See section 175A(d) of the CAA. Ohio’s 

contingency measures include a 

Warning Level Response and an Action 

Level Response. An initial Warning 

Level Response is triggered when the 

average weighted annual mean for one 

year exceeds 15.5 mg/m3. In that case, a 

study will be conducted to determine if 

the emissions trends show increases; if 

action is necessary to reverse emissions 

increases, Ohio will follow the same 

procedures for control selection and 

implementation as for an Action Level 

Response. 

The Action Level Response will be 

prompted by any one of the following: 

a Warning Level Response study that 

shows emissions increases, a weighted 

annual mean over a two-year average 

that exceeds the standard or a violation 

of the standard. If an Action Level 

Response is triggered, Ohio will adopt 

and implement appropriate control 

measures within 18 months from the 

end of the year in which monitored air 

quality triggering a response occurs. 

Ohio’s candidate contingency 

measures include the following: 

i. ICI Boilers—SO2 and NOX controls; 

ii. Process heaters; 

iii. EGUS; 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 231 / Friday, November 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 71393 

iv. Internal combustion engines; 

v. Combustion turbines; 

vi. Other sources > 100 TPY; 

vii. Fleet vehicles; 

viii. Concrete manufacturers and; 

ix. Aggregate processing plants. 

Ohio further commits to conduct 

ongoing review of its data, and if 

monitored concentrations or emissions 

are trending upward, Ohio commits to 

take appropriate steps to avoid a 

violation if possible. Ohio commits to 

continue implementing SIP 

requirements upon and after 

redesignation. 

EPA believes that Ohio’s contingency 

measures, as well as the commitment to 

continue implementing any SIP 

requirements, satisfy the pertinent 

requirements of section 175A(d). 

As required by section 175A(b) of the 

CAA, Ohio commits to submit to the 

EPA an updated PM2.5 maintenance 

plan eight years after redesignation of 

the Parkersburg-Marietta area to cover 

an additional ten-year period beyond 

the initial ten-year maintenance period. 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, Ohio has also committed to retain 

the PM2.5 control measures contained in 

the SIP prior to redesignation. 

For all of the reasons set forth above, 

EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s 

1997 annual PM2.5 maintenance plan for 

the Parkersburg-Marietta area as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 175A. 

5. Insignificance Determination for the 

Mobile Source Contribution to PM2.5 and 

NOX

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs (TIPs) must 

conform to applicable SIP goals. This 

means that such actions will not: (1) 

Cause or contribute to violations of a 

NAAQS; (2) worsen the severity of an 

existing violation; or (3) delay timely 

attainment of a NAAQS or any interim 

milestone. Actions involving Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) or 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

funding or approval are subject to the 

Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR 

part 93 subpart A). Under this rule, 

MPOs in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas coordinate with state 

air quality agencies and federal air and 

transportation agencies (EPA, FHWA 

and FTA) to demonstrate that their 

metropolitan transportation plans 

(‘‘plans’’) and TIPs conform to 

applicable SIPs. This is typically 

determined by showing that estimated 

emissions from existing and planned 

highway and transit systems are less 

than or equal to the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets contained in a SIP. 

For budgets to be approvable, they 

must meet, at a minimum, EPA’s 

adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). 

However, the Transportation 

Conformity Rule at 40 CFR 93.109(m) 

allows areas to forgo establishment of a 

budget(s) where it is demonstrated that 

regional motor vehicle emissions for a 

particular pollutant or precursor 

pollutant are an insignificant 

contributor to the air quality problem in 

the area. The general criteria for 

insignificance determinations per 40 

CFR 93.109(m) are based on a number 

of factors, including (1) the percentage 

of motor vehicle emissions in context of 

the total SIP inventory; (2) the current 

state of air quality as determined by 

monitoring data for that NAAQS; (3) the 

absence of SIP motor vehicle control 

measures; and (4) historical trends and 

future projections of the growth of 

motor vehicle emissions in the area. 

The redesignation request that Ohio 

submitted for its portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area includes a 

request for EPA to make an 

insignificance finding for NOX and 

directly emitted PM2.5 for the Ohio 

portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta 

PM2.5 nonattainment area. Pursuant to 

Section 93.118(e)(4) and 93.109(k) of the 

Transportation Conformity Rule, as part 

of the review of Ohio’s redesignation 

request and maintenance plan 

submittal, we have reviewed Ohio’s 

justification for the finding of 

insignificance for direct PM2.5 and also 

for NOX as a precursor of PM2.5 in the 

Ohio portion of the ParkersburgMarietta area. EPA agrees with Ohio’s 

conclusion that on-road emissions of 

PM2.5 and NOX are insignificant for 

transportation conformity purposes. We 

base our finding on several factors: 

—The fact that on December 7, 2009 (74 

FR 64075), EPA found these budgets 

to be insignificant as part of our 

review of the state’s July 16, 2008, 

PM2.5 attainment demonstration; 

—The fact that the area has been 

determined to attain the annual PM2.5

standard, and continues to attain the 

standard with the most recent three 

years of complete, quality assured 

monitoring data; 

—The absence of local on-road control 

measures; and 

—The continued downward trend of onroad NOX and PM2.5 emissions from 

2005–2022. 

Consistent with EPA’s adequacy 

review of Ohio’s redesignation request 

and maintenance plan and the Agency’s 

thorough review of the entire SIP 

submission, EPA is proposing to 

approve Ohio’s insignificance 

determination for the on-road motor 

vehicle contribution of NOX and PM2.5

emissions to the overall PM2.5 emissions 

in the Ohio portion of the ParkersburgMarietta PM2.5 area. 

Because EPA finds that Ohio’s 

submitted maintenance plan and 

redesignation request meets the criteria 

in the conformity rule for an 

insignificance finding for motor vehicle 

emissions of NOX and PM2.5 in the Ohio 

portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta 

PM2.5 area, it is not necessary to 

establish PM2.5 and NOX budgets for the 

Ohio portion of the ParkersburgMarietta PM2.5 area. That is, EPA finds 

that the submittal demonstrates that, for 

NOX and PM2.5, regional motor vehicle 

emissions are an insignificant 

contributor to the annual PM2.5 air 

quality problem in the Ohio portion of 

the area. Motor vehicle emissions in 

general, for the maintenance period of 

2015 and 2022, are low and declining in 

the Ohio portion of the area. In 2015 the 

percentage contribution to emissions 

from the Ohio portion of the area from 

motor vehicles is 10.49% and 3.48% for 

NOX and PM2.5, respectively. In 2022, 

motor vehicles in the Ohio portion of 

the area are projected to contribute only 

8.92% and 2.14% of emissions for NOX, 

and PM2.5, respectively, with the 

decrease due to Federal regulations on 

motor vehicle rules such as Heavy-duty 

Highway Vehicle standards and Tier 2 

vehicle and fuel standards. Also, there 

have been no SIP requirements for 

motor vehicle control measures for the 

Ohio portion of the area and it is 

unlikely that motor vehicle control 

measures will be implemented for PM2.5

in this area in the future. 

Finally, as described above, the area 

has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS and we are proposing to 

approve the maintenance plan and 

redesignation request for the Ohio 

portion of the area. Therefore motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for PM2.5 and 

NOX are not required for the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area to maintain 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

proposing to approve the inventory and 

the findings of insignificant 

contribution by motor vehicles, 

resulting in no proposed motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for the Ohio portion 

of the Parkersburg-Marietta area for 

2015 and 2022 projected maintenance 

years. On-road emissions were 

calculated using the EPA required 

MOVES2010a model. 

With regard to on-road emissions of 

SO2, volatile organic compounds and 

ammonia, Ohio did not provide 

emission budgets (or an insignificance 

demonstration) because it concluded, 

consistent with EPA’s presumptions 

regarding these PM2.5 precursors, that 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
71394 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 231 / Friday, November 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

emissions of these precursors from 

motor vehicles are not significant 

contributors to the area’s PM2.5 air 

quality problem. 

As discussed in section V(4)(c) of this 

action, EPA is proposing that if this 

approval is finalized in 2013 the area 

will continue to maintain the PM2.5

standard through at least 2023. 

Consistent with this proposal, EPA is 

proposing to determine the 

insignificance of motor vehicle 

emissions of NOX and PM2.5 as 

submitted by the State in its February 

29, 2012, maintenance plan for the Ohio 

portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area. 

EPA is proposing that the proposed 

finding insignificance of these 

emissions is consistent with 

maintenance of the Ohio portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area through 2023. 

6. 2005 Comprehensive Emissions 

Inventory 

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

of the CAA requires areas to submit a 

comprehensive emissions inventory. 

Ohio submitted a 2005 base year 

emissions inventory that meets this 

requirement. Emissions contained in the 

submittals cover the general source 

categories of point sources, area sources, 

on-road mobile sources, and nonroad 

mobile sources. 

For the point source sector, EGU SO2

and NOX emissions were derived from 

EPA’s Clean Air Market’s database. All 

other point source emissions were 

obtained from Ohio’s source facility 

emissions reporting. 

Area source emissions were 

extrapolated from Ohio’s 2005 periodic 

emissions inventories. Source growth 

factors were supplied by LADCO. 

Nonroad mobile source emissions 

were extrapolated from nonroad mobile 

source emissions reported in EPA’s 

2005 NEI. LADCO estimated emissions 

for commercial marine vessels and 

railroads. 

On-road mobile source emissions 

were calculated using EPA’s mobile 

source emission factor model, 

MOVES2010a, in conjunction with 

roadway network traffic information 

prepared by WWW. 

All emissions discussed in Table 4 

were documented in the submittal and 

the Appendices of Ohio’s redesignation 

request submittal. EPA has reviewed 

Ohio’s documentation of the emissions 

inventory techniques and data sources 

used for the derivation of the 2005 

emissions estimates and has found that 

Ohio has thoroughly documented the 

derivation of these emissions 

inventories. The submittal from the state 

shows that the 2005 emissions 

inventory is currently the most 

complete emissions inventories for 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area. Based upon 

EPA’s review, we propose to find that 

the 2005 emissions inventories are as 

complete and accurate as possible given 

the input data available to the Ohio, and 

we are proposing to approve them under 

CAA section 172(c)(3). 

7. Summary of Proposed Actions 

EPA has previously determined that 

the Parkersburg-Marietta area has 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to determine that the 

entire Parkersburg-Marietta area 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard using the latest three 

years of certified, quality-assured data, 

and that the Ohio portion of the area has 

met the requirements for redesignation 

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

EPA is proposing to approve the request 

from Ohio to change the legal 

designation of the Ohio portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

proposing to approve Ohio’s PM2.5

maintenance plan for the ParkersburgMarietta area as a revision to the Ohio 

SIP because the plan meets the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA. EPA is proposing to approve the 

2005 emissions inventories for primary 

PM2.5, NOX, and SO2, documented in 

Ohio’s February 29, 2012, submittal as 

satisfying the requirement in section 

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

comprehensive, current emission 

inventory. Finally, for transportation 

conformity purposes EPA is also 

proposing to approve Ohio’s 

determination that on-road emissions of 

PM2.5 and NOX are insignificant 

contributors to PM2.5 concentrations in 

the area. 

VI. What are the effects of EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

If finalized, approval of the 

redesignation request would change the 

official designation of the Ohio portion 

of the Parkersburg-Marietta area for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 

CFR part 81, from nonattainment to 

attainment. If finalized, EPA’s proposal 

would approve as a revision to the Ohio 

SIP for the Parkersburg-Marietta area, 

the maintenance plan for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard as well as the 

2005 emissions inventories included 

with the redesignation request. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

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

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, these actions: 

• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 231 / Friday, November 30, 2012 / Proposed Rules 71395 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, National Parks, Wilderness. 

Dated: November 15, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29012 Filed 11–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 271 and 272 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2012–0473; FRL–9744–9] 

Texas: Final Authorization of Stateinitiated Changes and Incorporation by 

Reference of State Hazardous Waste 

Management Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: During a review of Texas’ 

regulations, the EPA identified a variety 

of State-initiated changes to Texas’ 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act, as amended (RCRA), for which the 

State had not previously sought 

authorization. The EPA proposes to 

authorize the State for the program 

changes. In addition, the EPA proposes 

to codify in the regulations entitled 

‘‘Approved State Hazardous Waste 

Management Programs’’, Texas’ 

authorized hazardous waste program. 

The EPA will incorporate by reference 

into the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) those provisions of the State 

regulations that are authorized and that 

the EPA will enforce under RCRA. 

DATES: Send written comments by 

December 31, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional 

Authorization Coordinator, or Julia 

Banks, Codification Coordinator, State/ 

Tribal Oversight Section (6PD–O), 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Phone number: (214) 665–8533 or (214) 

665–8178. You may also submit 

comments electronically or through 

hand delivery/courier; please follow the 

detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES

section of the direct final rule which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alima Patterson, (214) 665–8533. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register, the EPA is authorizing 

the changes to the Texas program, and 

codifying and incorporating by 

reference the State’s hazardous waste 

program as a direct final rule. The EPA 

did not make a proposal prior to the 

direct final rule because we believe 

these actions are not controversial and 

do not expect comments that oppose 

them. We have explained the reasons for 

this authorization and incorporation by 

reference in the preamble to the direct 

final rule. Unless we get written 

comments which oppose this 

authorization and incorporation by 

reference during the comment period, 

the direct final rule will become 

effective on the date it establishes, and 

we will not take further action on this 

proposal. If we get comments that 

oppose these actions, we will withdraw 

the direct final rule and it will not take 

effect. We will then respond to public 

comments in a later final rule based on 

this proposal. You may not have another 

opportunity for comment. If you want to 

comment on this action, you must do so 

at this time. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 

6974(b). 

Dated: October 11, 2012. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2012–28322 Filed 11–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with