38256 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because a 

determination of attainment is an action 

that affects the status of a geographical 

area and does not impose any new 

regulatory requirements on tribes, 

impact any existing sources of air 

pollution on tribal lands, nor impair the 

maintenance of ozone national ambient 

air quality standards in tribal lands. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: June 13, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15295 Filed 6–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0212; FRL–9827–8] 

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; supplemental. 

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a supplement 

to its proposed approval of Ohio’s 

request to redesignate the Ohio portion 

of the Parkersburg-Marietta, West 

Virginia-Ohio, area to attainment for the 

1997 annual National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS or standard) 

for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). This 

supplemental proposal revises and 

expands the basis for proposing 

approval of the state’s request, in light 

of developments since EPA issued its 

initial proposal on November 30, 2012. 

This supplemental proposal addresses 

the effects of a January 4, 2013, decision 

of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit or 

Court) to remand to EPA two final rules 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 standard. 

In this supplemental proposal, EPA is 

also proposing to approve a supplement 

to the emission inventories previously 

submitted by Ohio. EPA is proposing 

that the inventories for ammonia and 

volatile organic compounds (VOC), in 

conjunction with the inventories for 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), direct PM2.5, and 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) that EPA 

previously proposed to approve, meet 

the comprehensive emissions inventory 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act). EPA is seeking comment only 

on the issues raised in its supplemental 

proposal, and is not re-opening for 

comment other issues raised in its prior 

proposal. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 26, 2013. 

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, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

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

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID 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 this document, ‘‘What Should I 

Consider as I Prepare my Comments for 

EPA?’’ 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone 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: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background for the 

supplemental proposal? 

III. On what specific issues is EPA taking 

comments? 

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

Circuit Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 

1. Background 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38257 

2. Supplemental Proposal on This Issue 

a. Applicable Requirements for Purposes of 

Evaluating the Redesignation Request 

b. Subpart 4 Requirements and Ohio’s 

Redesignation Request 

c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

d. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of 

Precursors 

B. Ammonia and VOC Comprehensive 

Emissions Inventories 

IV. Summary of Proposed Actions 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the background for the 

supplemental proposal? 

On February 29, 2012, the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(OEPA) submitted a request to EPA to 

redesignate the Ohio portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta, West VirginiaOhio nonattainment area (Washington 

County, Ohio) to attainment for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and for EPA 

approval of Ohio’s state implementation 

plan (SIP) revision containing an 

emissions inventory and a maintenance 

plan for the area. 

On December 2, 2011, EPA published 

a notice of final rulemaking determining 

that air quality in the ParkersburgMarietta area has met the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard (76 FR 75464). On 

November 30, 2012, EPA published a 

proposed rulemaking determining 

further that the Ohio portion of the area 

has met the requirements for 

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

of the CAA (77 FR 71383). In that 

rulemaking EPA proposed several 

related actions. First, EPA proposed to 

approve the request from OEPA 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 

also proposed to approve Ohio’s PM2.5

maintenance plan for the Ohio portion 

of the Parkersburg-Marietta area as a 

revision to the Ohio SIP because the 

plan meets the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA. In addition, EPA 

proposed to approve 2006 emissions 

inventories for primary PM2.5, NOX, and 

SO2, documented in Ohio’s February 29, 

2012, PM2.5 redesignation request 

submittal as satisfying the requirement 

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

comprehensive, current emission 

inventory. Finally, EPA proposed a 

finding of insignificance of motor 

vehicle emissions for the Ohio portion 

of the Parkersburg-Marietta area (such 

that no motor vehicle emission budgets 

for emissions of directly emitted PM2.5

and NOX are necessary). EPA did not 

receive adverse comments on the 

proposed rulemaking. 

Today, EPA is issuing a supplement 

to its November 30, 2012, proposed 

rulemaking. This supplemental proposal 

addresses two separate issues which 

affect the proposed redesignation and 

which have arisen since the issuance of 

the proposal: a recent decision of the 

D.C. Circuit, and the State of Ohio’s 

supplemental submission of 

comprehensive ammonia and VOC 

emissions inventories. 

On January 4, 2013, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the 

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

Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

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

the ‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

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

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

In a supplemental submission to EPA on 

April 30, 2013, Ohio submitted 2007/ 

2008 ammonia and VOC emissions 

inventories to supplement the emissions 

inventories that had previously been 

submitted. 

III. On what specific issues is EPA 

taking comments? 

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

Circuit Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 

1. Background 

As discussed above, on January 4, 

2013, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit 

remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air 

Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72 

FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

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

16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428 

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

EPA erred in implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general 

implementation provisions of subpart 1 

of part D of title I of the CAA, rather 

than the particulate-matter-specific 

provisions of subpart 4 of part D of title 

I. 

2. Supplemental Proposal on This Issue 

In this portion of EPA’s supplemental 

proposal, EPA is soliciting comment on 

the limited issue of the effect of the 

Court’s January 4, 2013, ruling on the 

proposed redesignation of the Ohio 

portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area 

to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard. As explained below, EPA is 

proposing to determine that the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, decision does not 

prevent EPA from redesignating the 

Ohio portion of the ParkersburgMarietta area to attainment, because 

even in light of the Court’s decision, 

redesignation for this area is appropriate 

under the CAA and EPA’s longstanding 

interpretations of the CAA’s provisions 

regarding redesignation. First, EPA 

explains its longstanding interpretation 

that requirements that are imposed, or 

that become due, after a complete 

redesignation request is submitted for 

an area that is attaining the standard, are 

not applicable for purposes of 

evaluating a redesignation request. 

Second, EPA shows that, even if EPA 

applies the subpart 4 requirements to 

the Ohio portion of the ParkersburgMarietta area redesignation request and 

disregards the provisions of its 1997 

PM2.5 implementation rule recently 

remanded by the Court, the state’s 

request for redesignation of this area 

still qualifies for approval. EPA’s 

discussion takes into account the effect 

of the Court’s ruling on the area’s 

maintenance plan, which EPA views as 

approvable when subpart 4 

requirements are considered. 

a. Applicable Requirements for 

Purposes of Evaluating the 

Redesignation Request 

With respect to the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, ruling rejected EPA’s 

reasons for implementing the PM2.5

NAAQS solely in accordance with the 

provisions of subpart 1, and remanded 

that matter to EPA, so that it could 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38258 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1Applicable requirements of the CAA that come 

due subsequent to the area’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request remain applicable until a 

redesignation is approved, but are not required as 

a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of 

the CAA. 

2Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and 

distinguished in a recent D.C. Circuit decision that 

addressed retroactivity in a quite different context, 

where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to give 

its regulations retroactive effect. National 

Petrochemical and Refiners Ass’n v. EPA. 630 F.3d 

address implementation of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of part D 

of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For 

the purposes of evaluating Ohio’s 

redesignation request for the Ohio 

portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area, 

to the extent that implementation under 

subpart 4 would impose additional 

requirements for areas designated 

nonattainment, EPA believes that those 

requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of CAA section 

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

required to consider subpart 4 

requirements with respect to the Ohio 

portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area 

redesignation. Under its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA, EPA has 

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

as a threshold matter, that the part D 

provisions which are ‘‘applicable’’ and 

which must be approved in order for 

EPA to redesignate an area include only 

those which came due prior to a state’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992 (Calcagni memorandum). See also 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993 (Shapiro 

memorandum); Final Redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 

12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final 

Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 

FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003); 

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

(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation and expressly rejecting 

Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of 

‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is 

‘‘whatever should have been in the plan 

at the time of attainment rather than 

whatever actually was in the plan and 

already implemented or due at the time 

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

that Ohio submitted its redesignation 

request, requirements under subpart 4 

were not due, and indeed, were not yet 

known to apply. 

EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the Ohio portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area’s 

redesignation, the subpart 4 

requirements were not due at the time 

Ohio submitted the redesignation 

request is in keeping with the EPA’s 

interpretation of subpart 2 requirements 

for subpart 1 ozone areas redesignated 

subsequent to the D.C. Circuit’s decision 

in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. 

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

In South Coast, the Court found that 

EPA was not permitted to implement 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely 

under subpart 1, and held that EPA was 

required under the statute to implement 

the standard under the ozone-specific 

requirements of subpart 2 as well. 

Subsequent to the South Coast decision, 

in evaluating and acting upon 

redesignation requests for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard that were 

submitted to EPA for areas under 

subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA that 

‘‘applicable requirements’’, for purposes 

of evaluating a redesignation, are those 

that had been due at the time the 

redesignation request was submitted. 

See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of 

Manitowoc County and Door County 

Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 

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

EPA therefore did not consider subpart 

2 requirements to be ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of evaluating whether the 

area should be redesignated under 

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

EPA’s interpretation derives from the 

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

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

area to be redesignated, a state must 

meet ‘‘all requirements ‘applicable’ to 

the area under section 110 and part D’’. 

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

EPA must have fully approved the 

‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the area seeking 

redesignation. These two sections read 

together support EPA’s interpretation of 

‘‘applicable’’ as only those requirements 

that came due prior to submission of a 

complete redesignation request. First, 

holding states to an ongoing obligation 

to adopt new CAA requirements that 

arose after the state submitted its 

redesignation request, in order to be 

redesignated, would make it 

problematic or impossible for EPA to act 

on redesignation requests in accordance 

with the 18-month deadline Congress 

set for EPA action in section 

107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ were interpreted to be a 

continuing flow of requirements with no 

reasonable limitation, states, after 

submitting a redesignation request, 

would be forced continuously to make 

additional SIP submissions that in turn 

would require EPA to undertake further 

notice-and-comment rulemaking actions 

to act on those submissions. This would 

create a regime of unceasing rulemaking 

that would delay action on the 

redesignation request beyond the 18- 

month timeframe provided by the Act 

for this purpose. 

Second, a fundamental premise for 

redesignating a nonattainment area to 

attainment is that the area has attained 

the relevant NAAQS due to emission 

reductions from existing controls. Thus, 

an area for which a redesignation 

request has been submitted would have 

already attained the NAAQS as a result 

of satisfying statutory requirements that 

came due prior to the submission of the 

request. Absent a showing that 

unadopted and unimplemented 

requirements are necessary for future 

maintenance, it is reasonable to view 

the requirements applicable for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request as including only those SIP 

requirements that have already come 

due. These are the requirements that led 

to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, 

for redesignation approval, that a state 

also satisfy additional SIP requirements 

coming due after the state submits its 

complete redesignation request, and 

while EPA is reviewing it, would 

compel the state to do more than is 

necessary to attain the NAAQS, without 

a showing that the additional 

requirements are necessary for 

maintenance. 

In the context of the Ohio portion of 

the Parkersburg-Marietta area’s 

redesignation, the timing and nature of 

the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision in 

NRDC v. EPA compound the 

consequences of imposing requirements 

that come due after the redesignation 

request is submitted. While Ohio 

submitted its redesignation request on 

February 29, 2012, and EPA proposed to 

approve it on November 30, 2012, the 

Court did not issue its decision 

remanding EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule concerning the 

applicability of the provisions of 

subpart 4 until January 4, 2013. 

To require Ohio’s fully-completed and 

long-pending redesignation request to 

comply now with requirements of 

subpart 4 would be to give retroactive 

effect to such requirements when the 

state had no notice that it was required 

to meet them. The D.C. Circuit 

recognized the inequity of this type of 

retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. 

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


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38259 

145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing denied 643 F.3d 

958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 571 

(2011). 3PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 

micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

4Section 188(a) also provides that EPA publish a 

notice announcing the classification of each area 

under subpart 4. 

5The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 

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

redesignation is discussed below. 

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

milestone requirements, contingency measures. 

where it upheld the District Court’s 

ruling refusing to make retroactive 

EPA’s determination that the St. Louis 

area did not meet its attainment 

deadline. In that case, petitioners urged 

the Court to make EPA’s nonattainment 

determination effective as of the date 

that the statute required, rather than the 

later date on which EPA actually made 

the determination. The Court rejected 

this view, stating that applying it 

‘‘would likely impose large costs on 

States, which would face fines and suits 

for not implementing air pollution 

prevention plans . . . even though they 

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

68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable 

to penalize Ohio by rejecting its 

redesignation request for an area that is 

already attaining the 1997 PM2.5

standard and that met all applicable 

requirements known to be in effect at 

the time of the request. For EPA now to 

reject the redesignation request solely 

because the state did not expressly 

address subpart 4 requirements of 

which it had no notice, would inflict the 

same unfairness condemned by the 

Court in Sierra Club v. Whitman. 

b. Subpart 4 Requirements and Ohio’s 

Redesignation Request 

Even if EPA were to take the view that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision 

requires that, in the context of pending 

redesignations, subpart 4 requirements 

were due and in effect at the time the 

state submitted its redesignation 

request, EPA proposes to determine that 

the Ohio portion of the ParkersburgMarietta area still qualifies for 

redesignation to attainment. As 

explained below, EPA believes that the 

redesignation request for the Ohio 

portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area, 

though not expressed in terms of 

subpart 4 requirements, substantively 

meets the requirements of that subpart 

for purposes of redesignating the area to 

attainment. 

With respect to evaluating the 

relevant substantive requirements of 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the Ohio portion of the ParkersburgMarietta area, EPA notes that subpart 4 

incorporates components of subpart 1 of 

part D, which contains general air 

quality planning requirements for areas 

designated as nonattainment. See 

Section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains 

specific planning and scheduling 

requirements for PM10 3 nonattainment 

areas, and under the Court’s January 4, 

2013, decision in NRDC v. EPA, these 

same statutory requirements also apply 

for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has 

longstanding general guidance that 

interprets the 1990 amendments to the 

CAA, making recommendations to states 

for meeting the statutory requirements 

for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See, 

‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clear Air Act Amendments 

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

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

Preamble, EPA discussed the 

relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 

SIP requirements, and pointed out that 

subpart 1 requirements were to an 

extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally 

related to, the more specific PM–10 

requirements.’’ 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 

1992). EPA’s previously published 

proposal for this redesignation action 

addressed how the Parkersburg-Marietta 

area meets the requirements for 

redesignation under subpart 1. These 

subpart 1 requirements include, among 

other things, provisions for attainment 

demonstrations, reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), reasonable 

further progress (RFP), emissions 

inventories, and contingency measures. 

For the purposes of this redesignation, 

in order to identify any additional 

requirements which would apply under 

subpart 4, we are considering the Ohio 

portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area 

to be a ‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5 nonattainment 

area. Under section 188 of the CAA, all 

areas designated nonattainment areas 

under subpart 4 would initially be 

classified by operation of law as 

‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment areas, and 

would remain moderate nonattainment 

areas unless and until EPA reclassifies 

the area as a ‘‘serious’’ nonattainment 

area.4 Accordingly, EPA believes that it 

is appropriate to limit the evaluation of 

the potential impact of subpart 4 

requirements to those that would be 

applicable to moderate nonattainment 

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

4 apply to moderate nonattainment 

areas and include the following: (1) An 

approved permit program for 

construction of new and modified major 

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

(2) an attainment demonstration (section 

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

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

quantitative milestones demonstrating 

RFP toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date (section 

189(c)). 

The permit requirements of subpart 4, 

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

refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit 

provisions requirements of sections 172 

and 173 to PM10, without adding to 

them. Consequently, EPA believes that 

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

impose for redesignation purposes any 

additional requirements for moderate 

areas beyond those contained in subpart 

1.5 In any event, in the context of 

redesignation, EPA has long relied on 

the interpretation that a fully approved 

nonattainment new source review 

program is not considered an applicable 

requirement for redesignation, provided 

the area can maintain the standard with 

a prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) program after redesignation. A 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ See also 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). 

With respect to the specific 

attainment planning requirements under 

subpart 4,6 when EPA evaluates a 

redesignation request under either 

subpart 1 and/or 4, any area that is 

attaining the PM2.5 standard is viewed 

as having satisfied the attainment 

planning requirements for these 

subparts. For redesignations, EPA has 

for many years interpreted attainmentlinked requirements as not applicable 

for areas attaining the standard. In the 

General Preamble, EPA stated that: 

The requirements for RFP will not apply in 

evaluating a request for redesignation to 

attainment since, at a minimum, the air 

quality data for the area must show that the 

area has already attained. Showing that the 

State will make RFP towards attainment will, 

therefore, have no meaning at that point. 

‘‘General Preamble for the 

Interpretation of Title I of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990’’; (57 FR 

13498, 13564, April 16, 1992). 

The General Preamble also explained 

that 

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

directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by 

the applicable date. These requirements no 

longer apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for redesignation. 

Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance 

plans . . . provides specific requirements for 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38260 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

7As EPA has explained above, we do not believe 

that the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision should be 

interpreted so as to impose these requirements on 

the states retroactively. Sierra Club v. Whitman, 

supra. 

contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas. 

Id. 

EPA similarly stated in its 1992 

Calcagni memorandum that, ‘‘The 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress and other measures needed for 

attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning for areas not attaining the 

standard.’’ 

It is evident that even if we were to 

consider the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that 

attainment-related requirements specific 

to subpart 4 should be imposed 

retroactively 7 and thus are now past 

due, those requirements do not apply to 

an area that is attaining the 1997 PM2.5

standard, for the purpose of evaluating 

a pending request to redesignate the 

area to attainment. EPA has consistently 

enunciated this interpretation of 

applicable requirements under section 

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

was published more than twenty years 

ago. Courts have recognized the scope of 

EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ in the redesignation 

context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

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

Moreover, even outside the context of 

redesignations, EPA has viewed the 

obligations to submit attainment-related 

SIP planning requirements of subpart 4 

as inapplicable for areas that EPA 

determines are attaining the standard. 

EPA’s prior ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ 

rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also 

governed by the requirements of subpart 

4, explain EPA’s reasoning. They 

describe the effects of a determination of 

attainment on the attainment-related SIP 

planning requirements of subpart 4. See 

‘‘Determination of Attainment for Coso 

Junction Nonattainment Area,’’ (75 FR 

27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso 

Junction proposed PM10 redesignation, 

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

Proposed and Final Determinations of 

Attainment for San Joaquin 

Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 

40954–55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 

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

short, EPA in this context has also long 

concluded that to require states to meet 

superfluous SIP planning requirements 

is not necessary and not required by the 

CAA, so long as those areas continue to 

attain the relevant NAAQS. 

In its November 30, 2012, proposal for 

this action, EPA proposed to determine 

that the Ohio portion of the ParkersburgMarietta area has attained the 1997 

PM2.5 standard and therefore meets the 

attainment-related plan requirements of 

subpart 1. Under its longstanding 

interpretation, EPA is proposing to 

determine here that the area also meets 

the attainment-related plan 

requirements of subpart 4. 

Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude 

that the requirements to submit an 

attainment demonstration under 

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

under section 172(c) and section 

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

under 189(c)(1) are satisfied for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request. 

c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

The D.C. Circuit, in NRDC v. EPA, 

remanded to EPA the two rules at issue 

in the case with instructions to EPA to 

re-promulgate them consistent with the 

requirements of subpart 4. The Court’s 

opinion raises the issue of the 

appropriate approach to addressing 

PM2.5 precursors in this and future EPA 

actions. While past implementation of 

subpart 4 for PM10 has allowed for 

control of PM10 precursors such as NOX

from major stationary, mobile, and area 

sources in order to attain the standard 

as expeditiously as practicable, CAA 

section 189(e) specifically provides that 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10 shall 

also apply to PM10 precursors from 

those sources, except where EPA 

determines that major stationary sources 

of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels which 

exceed the standard in the area.’’ 

EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 implementation 

rule, remanded by the DC Circuit, 

contained rebuttable presumptions 

concerning certain PM2.5 precursors 

applicable to attainment plans and 

control measures related to those plans. 

Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA 

provided, among other things, that a 

state was ‘‘not required to address VOC 

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

plan precursor[s] and to evaluate 

sources of VOC [and ammonia] 

emissions in the State for control 

measures.’’ EPA intended these to be 

rebuttable presumptions. EPA 

established these presumptions at the 

time because of uncertainties regarding 

the emission inventories for these 

pollutants and the effectiveness of 

specific control measures in various 

regions of the country in reducing PM2.5

concentrations. EPA also left open the 

possibility for such regulation of VOC 

and ammonia in specific areas where 

that was necessary. 

The Court in its January 4, 2013, 

decision made reference to both section 

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

that, ‘‘In light of our disposition, we 

need not address the petitioners’ 

challenge to the presumptions in [40 

CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic 

compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5

precursors, as subpart 4 expressly 

governs precursor presumptions.’’ 

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

Elsewhere in the Court’s opinion, 

however, the Court observed: 

Ammonia is a precursor to fine particulate 

matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5

and PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area 

governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 

presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7513a(e) [section 189(e)]. 

Id. at 21, n.7. 

For a number of reasons, EPA believes 

that the Court’s decision on this aspect 

of subpart 4 does not preclude EPA’s 

approval of Ohio’s redesignation request 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. First, while 

the Court, citing section 189(e), stated 

that ‘‘for a PM10 area governed by 

subpart 4, a precursor is ‘presumptively 

regulated,’’’ the Court expressly 

declined to decide the specific 

challenge to EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule provisions 

regarding ammonia and VOC as 

precursors. The Court had no occasion 

to reach whether and how it was 

substantively necessary to regulate any 

specific precursor in a particular PM2.5

nonattainment area, and did not address 

what might be necessary for purposes of 

acting upon a redesignation request. 

However, even if EPA takes the view 

that the requirements of subpart 4 were 

deemed applicable at the time the state 

submitted the redesignation request, 

and disregards the implementation 

rule’s rebuttable presumptions regarding 

ammonia and VOC as PM2.5 precursors, 

the regulatory consequence would be to 

consider the need for regulation of all 

precursors from any sources in the area 

to demonstrate attainment and to apply 

the section 189(e) provisions to major 

stationary sources of precursors. In the 

case of the Ohio portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area, EPA believes 

that doing so would not affect the 

approvability of the proposed 

redesignation of the area for the 1997 

PM2.5 standard. The entire ParkersburgMarietta area has attained the standard 

without any specific additional controls 

of VOC and ammonia emissions from 

any sources in the area. 

Precursors in subpart 4 are 

specifically regulated under the 

provisions of section 189(e), which 

requires, with important exceptions, 

control requirements for major 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38261 

8Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for 

purposes of demonstrating attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable, a state is required to 

evaluate all economically and technologically 

feasible control measures for direct PM emissions 

and precursor emissions, and adopt those measures 

that are deemed reasonably available. 

9The Ohio portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta 

area has reduced VOC emissions through the 

implementation of various control programs 

including VOC Reasonably Available Control 

Technology regulations and various on-road and 

non-road motor vehicle control programs. 

10See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans for California—San Joaquin 

Valley PM–10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area 

Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual 

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

(approving a PM10 attainment plan that impose 

controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and did 

not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or ammonia 

emissions). 11See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA 

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

stationary sources of PM10 precursors.8

Under subpart 1 and EPA’s prior 

implementation rule, all major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors 

were subject to regulation, with the 

exception of ammonia and VOC. Thus 

we must address here whether 

additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC from major stationary sources are 

required under section 189(e) of subpart 

4 in order to redesignate the Ohio 

portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area 

for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. As 

explained below, we do not believe that 

any additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC are required in the context of this 

redesignation. 

In the General Preamble, EPA 

discusses its approach to implementing 

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

With regard to precursor regulation 

under section 189(e), the General 

Preamble explicitly stated that control 

of VOCs under other Act requirements 

may suffice to relieve a state from the 

need to adopt precursor controls under 

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

supplemental proposal proposes to 

determine that the Ohio SIP has met the 

provisions of section 189(e) with respect 

to ammonia and VOCs as precursors. 

This proposed supplemental 

determination is based on our findings 

that (1) the Ohio portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area contains no 

major stationary sources of ammonia, 

and (2) existing major stationary sources 

of VOC are adequately controlled under 

other provisions of the CAA regulating 

the ozone NAAQS.9 In the alternative, 

EPA proposes to determine that, under 

the express exception provisions of 

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

redesignation of the Ohio portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area, which is 

attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard, at present ammonia and VOC 

precursors from major stationary 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to levels exceeding the 1997 PM2.5

standard in the area. See 57 FR 13539– 

13542. 

EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule provisions in 40 

CFR 51.1002 were not directed at 

evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the 

context of redesignation, but at SIP 

plans and control measures required to 

bring a nonattainment area into 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

By contrast, redesignation to attainment 

primarily requires the area to have 

already attained due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions, and to 

demonstrate that controls in place can 

continue to maintain the standard. 

Thus, even if we regard the Court’s 

January 4, 2013, decision as calling for 

‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of ammonia 

and VOC for PM2.5 under the attainment 

planning provisions of subpart 4, those 

provisions in and of themselves do not 

require additional controls of these 

precursors for an area that already 

qualifies for redesignation, nor does 

EPA believe that requiring Ohio to 

address precursors differently than they 

have already would result in a 

substantively different outcome. 

Although, as EPA has emphasized, its 

consideration here of precursor 

requirements under subpart 4 is in the 

context of a redesignation to attainment, 

EPA’s existing interpretation of subpart 

4 requirements with respect to 

precursors in attainment plans for PM10

contemplates that states may develop 

attainment plans that regulate only 

those precursors that are necessary for 

purposes of attainment in the area in 

question, i.e., states may determine that 

only certain precursors need be 

regulated for attainment and control 

purposes.10 Courts have upheld this 

approach to the requirements of subpart 

4 for PM10.11 EPA believes that 

application of this approach to PM2.5

precursors under subpart 4 is 

reasonable. Because the ParkersburgMarietta area has already attained the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS with its current 

approach to regulation of PM2.5

precursors, EPA believes that it is 

reasonable to conclude in the context of 

this redesignation that there is no need 

to revisit the attainment control strategy 

with respect to the treatment of 

precursors. Even if the Court’s decision 

is construed to impose an obligation, in 

evaluating this redesignation request, to 

consider additional precursors under 

subpart 4, it would not affect EPA’s 

approval here of Ohio’s request for 

redesignation of the Ohio portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area. In the context 

of a redesignation, the area has shown 

that it has attained the standard. 

Moreover, the state has shown and EPA 

has proposed to determine that 

attainment in this area is due to 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions on all precursors necessary 

to provide for continued attainment. It 

follows logically that no further control 

of additional precursors is necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA does not view the 

January 4, 2013, decision of the Court as 

precluding redesignation of the Ohio 

portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area 

to attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

at this time. 

In sum, even if Ohio were required to 

address precursors for the Ohio portion 

of the Parkersburg-Marietta area under 

subpart 4 rather than under subpart 1, 

as interpreted in EPA’s remanded PM2.5

implementation rule, EPA would still 

conclude that the area had met all 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with 

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

d. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of 

Precursors 

With regard to the redesignation of 

the Ohio portion of the ParkersburgMarietta area, in evaluating the effect of 

the Court’s remand of EPA’s 

implementation rule, which included 

presumptions against consideration of 

VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, 

EPA in this supplemental proposal is 

also considering the impact of the 

decision on the maintenance plan 

required under sections 175A and 

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

notes that the area has attained the 1997 

PM2.5 standard and that the state has 

shown that attainment of that standard 

is due to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions. 

In its prior proposal notice for this 

action, EPA proposed to determine that 

the state’s maintenance plan shows 

continued maintenance of the standard 

by tracking the levels of the precursors 

whose control brought about attainment 

of the 1997 PM2.5 standard in the Ohio 

portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area. 

EPA therefore believes that the only 

additional consideration related to the 

maintenance plan requirements that 

results from the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision is that of assessing the 

potential role of VOC and ammonia in 

demonstrating continued maintenance 

in this area. As explained below, based 

upon documentation provided by the 

state and supporting information, EPA 

believes that the maintenance plan for 

the Ohio portion of the ParkersburgMarietta area need not include any 

additional emission reductions of VOC 

or ammonia in order to provide for 

continued maintenance of the standard. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38262 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

First, as noted above in EPA’s 

discussion of section 189(e), VOC 

emission levels in this area have 

historically been well controlled under 

SIP requirements related to ozone and 

other pollutants. Second, total ammonia 

emissions throughout the Ohio portion 

of the Parkersburg-Marietta area are very 

low, estimated to be less than 1,300 tons 

per year. See Table 4 below. This 

amount of ammonia emissions is 

especially small in comparison to the 

total amounts of SO2, NOX, and even 

direct PM2.5 emissions from sources in 

the area. Third, as described below, 

available information shows that VOC is 

expected to decrease over the 

maintenance period so as not to 

interfere with or undermine the state’s 

maintenance demonstration. 

Ohio’s maintenance plan shows that 

emissions of direct PM2.5, SO2, and NOX

are projected to decrease by 22.34 tons 

per year (tpy), 101,435.07 tpy, and 

15,948.43 tpy, respectively, over the 

maintenance period. See Tables 1–3 

below. In addition, emissions 

inventories used in the regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS show that VOC emissions are 

projected to decrease by 968.82 tpy, and 

that ammonia emissions will increase 

by 87.45 tpy, between 2007 and 2020. 

See Table 4 below. While the RIA 

emissions inventories are only projected 

out to 2020, there is no reason to believe 

that the downward trend of VOC 

emissions would not continue through 

2022. While ammonia emissions are 

projected to increase, given that the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area is already 

attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS even 

with the current level of emissions from 

sources in the area, the downward trend 

of emissions from VOC inventories 

would be consistent with continued 

attainment and even a small increase in 

ammonia emissions would not cause a 

violation of the NAAQS. Indeed, 

projected emissions reductions for the 

precursors that the state is addressing 

for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

indicate that the area should continue to 

attain the NAAQS following the 

precursor control strategy that the state 

has already elected to pursue. Even if 

VOC emissions were to increase 

unexpectedly, and ammonia emissions 

were to increase further between 2020 

and 2022, the overall emissions 

reductions projected in direct PM2.5,

SO2, and NOX would be sufficient to 

offset any increases. For these reasons, 

EPA believes that local emissions of all 

of the potential PM2.5 precursors will 

not increase to the extent that they will 

cause monitored PM2.5 levels to violate 

the 1997 PM2.5 standard during the 

maintenance period. 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF 2005, 2008, 2015, AND 2022 DIRECT PM2.5 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) 

FOR THE OHIO PORTION OF THE PARKERSBURG-MARIETTA AREA

[Washington County, Ohio] 

Sector 

Direct PM2.5

2005 2008 2015 2022 Net change 

2005–2022 

Point ..................................................................................... 472.37 471.72 470.21 468.70 ¥3.02 

EGU 12 .................................................................................. 384.81 392.62 407.19 418.67 26.05 

Area ...................................................................................... 148.43 222.16 251.82 254.36 35.20 

Non-road .............................................................................. 47.29 41.33 27.71 14.06 ¥27.27 

On-road 13 ............................................................................ 90.45 75.52 41.68 25.22 ¥50.30 

Total .............................................................................. 1,143.35 1,203.35 1,198.61 1,181.01 ¥22.34 

12Electric generating units. 13Emissions projections for the on-road sector were generated using the MOVES model. 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF 2005, 2008, 2015, AND 2022 SO2 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE

OHIO PORTION OF THE PARKERSBURG-MARIETTA AREA

[Washington County, Ohio] 

Sector 

SO2

2005 2008 2015 2022 Net change 

2005–2022 

Point ..................................................................................... 5,200.90 5,372.72 5,744.96 6,122.46 749.74 

EGU ..................................................................................... 140,957.01 133,348.05 61,849.00 31,206.55 ¥102,141.50 

Area ...................................................................................... 9.78 10.56 10.51 10.15 ¥0.41 

Non-road .............................................................................. 85.52 46.37 14.91 5.70 ¥40.67 

On-road ................................................................................ 26.97 8.54 6.46 6.31 ¥2.23 

Total .............................................................................. 146,280.18 138,786.24 67,625.84 37,351.17 ¥101,435.07 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF 2005, 2008, 2015, AND 2022 NOX EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE

OHIO PORTION OF THE PARKERSBURG-MARIETTA AREA

[Washington County, Ohio] 

Sector 

NOX

2005 2008 2015 2022 Net change 

2005–2022 

Point ..................................................................................... 1,748.86 1,941.94 2,019.31 2,052.47 110.53 

EGU ..................................................................................... 16,137.09 17,168.69 7,505.59 3,364.26 ¥13,804.43 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38263 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF 2005, 2008, 2015, AND 2022 NOX EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE

OHIO PORTION OF THE PARKERSBURG-MARIETTA AREA—Continued 

[Washington County, Ohio] 

Sector 

NOX

2005 2008 2015 2022 Net change 

2005–2022 

Area ...................................................................................... 168.44 178.66 183.96 191.01 12.35 

Non-road .............................................................................. 926.75 829.26 530.03 237.54 ¥591.72 

On-road 14 ............................................................................ 2,687.09 2,247.41 1,200.52 572.25 ¥1,675.16 

Total .............................................................................. 21,668.43 22,365.96 11,439.41 6,174.53 ¥15,948.43 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2020 VOC AND AMMONIA EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE

OHIO PORTION OF THE PARKERSBURG-MARIETTA AREA

[Washington County, Ohio] 14

Sector 

VOC Ammonia 

2007 2020 Net change 

2007–2020 2007 2020 Net change 2007–2020 

Point ......................................................... 666.93 653.86 ¥13.07 567.76 660.88 93.12 

Area .......................................................... 1,215.96 1,249.52 33.56 652.00 668.70 16.72 

Non-road .................................................. 428.74 229.60 ¥199.14 0.63 0.68 0.05 

On-road .................................................... 1,207.30 417.13 ¥790.17 43.64 21.22 ¥22.42 

Fires ......................................................... 83.68 83.68 0 5.82 5.82 0 

Total .................................................. 3,602.61 2,633.79 ¥968.82 1,269.85 1,357.30 87.45 

14These emissions estimates were taken from the emissions inventories developed for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

In addition, available air quality 

modeling analyses show continued 

maintenance of the standard during the 

maintenance period. The current air 

quality design value for the area is 12.3 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) 

(based on 2009–11 air quality data), 

which is well below the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 mg/m3. Moreover, 

the modeling analysis conducted for the 

RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

indicates that the design value for this 

area is expected to significantly decline 

through 2020. In the RIA analysis, the 

2020 modeled design value for the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area is 9.2 mg/m3. 

Given that all precursor emissions 

except ammonia are projected to 

decrease through 2022, it is reasonable 

to conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels 

in this area will also continue to 

decrease through 2022. 

Thus, EPA believes that there is 

ample justification to conclude that the 

Ohio portion of the ParkersburgMarietta area should be redesignated, 

even taking into consideration the 

emissions of other precursors 

potentially relevant to PM2.5. After 

consideration of the D.C. Circuit’s 

January 4, 2013, decision, and for the 

reasons set forth in this supplemental 

notice, EPA continues to propose 

approval of Ohio’s maintenance plan 

and its request to redesignate the Ohio 

portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area 

to attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 annual 

standard. 

B. Ammonia and VOC Comprehensive 

Emissions Inventories 

In this supplemental proposal EPA 

also addresses the State of Ohio’s 

supplemental submission that provides 

additional information concerning 

ammonia and VOC emissions in the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area in order to 

meet the emissions inventory 

requirement of CAA section 172(c)(3). 

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

states to submit a comprehensive, 

accurate, and current emissions 

inventory for a nonattainment area. For 

purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS, this 

emissions inventory should address not 

only direct emissions of PM2.5, but also 

emissions of all precursors with the 

potential to participate in PM2.5

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

ammonia. 

In the November 30, 2012, proposed 

rule, EPA proposed to approve the 

emissions inventory information for 

direct PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 submitted 

by OEPA as meeting the emissions 

inventory requirement for the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area. On April 30, 

2013, OEPA supplemented its submittal 

with 2007/2008 emissions inventories 

for ammonia and VOC. The additional 

emissions inventory information 

provided by the state addresses 

emissions of VOC and ammonia from 

the general source categories of point 

sources, area sources, on-road mobile 

sources, and non-road mobile sources. 

The state-submitted emissions 

inventories were based upon 

information generated by the Lake 

Michigan Air Directors Consortium 

(LADCO) in conjunction with its 

member states and are presented in 

Table 5 below. 

LADCO ran the EMS model using data 

provided by Ohio to generate point 

source emissions estimates. The point 

source data was obtained from Ohio’s 

source facility emissions reporting. 

For area sources, LADCO ran the EMS 

model using the 2008 National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) data 

provided by Ohio. LADCO followed 

Eastern Regional Technical Advisory 

Committee (ERTAC) recommendations 

on area sources when preparing the 

data. Agricultural ammonia emissions 

were not taken from NEI; instead 

emissions were based on Carnegie 

Mellon University’s Ammonia Emission 

Inventory for the Continental United 

States (CMU). Specifically, the CMU 

2002 annual emissions were grown to 

reflect 2007 conditions. A process-based 

ammonia emissions model developed 

for LADCO was then used to develop 

temporal factors to reflect the impact of 

average meteorology on livestock 

emissions. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38264 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Non-road mobile source emissions 

were generated using the NMIM2008 

emissions model. LADCO also 

accounted for three other non-road 

categories not covered by the NMIM 

model (commercial marine vessels, 

aircraft, and railroads). Marine 

emissions were based on reports 

prepared by Environ entitled ‘‘LADCO 

Nonroad Emissions Inventory Project for 

Locomotive, Commercial Marine, and 

Recreational Marine Emission Sources, 

Final Report, December 2004’’ and 

‘‘LADCO 2005 Commercial Marine 

Emissions, Draft, March 2, 2007.’’ 

Aircraft emissions were provided by 

Ohio and calculated using AP–42 

emission factors and landing and takeoff data provided by the Federal 

Aviation Administration. Rail emissions 

were based on the 2008 inventory 

developed by ERTAC. 

On-road mobile source emissions 

were generated using EPA’s 

MOVES2010a emissions model. 

EPA notes that the emissions 

inventory developed by LADCO is 

documented in ‘‘Regional Air Quality 

Analyses for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional 

Haze: Base C Emissions Inventory’’ 

(September 12, 2011). 

TABLE 5—PARKERSBURG-MARIETTA

AREA AMMONIA AND VOC EMISSIONS (TPY) FOR 2007/2008 BY

SOURCE SECTOR

Sector Ammonia VOC 

Point .......................... 527.75 623.19 

Area .......................... 711.50 1,267.64 

Non-road ................... 0.63 452.83 

On-road ..................... 36.43 945.66 

Total .......................... 1,276.30 3,289.32 

EPA has concluded that the 2007/ 

2008 ammonia and VOC emissions 

inventories provided by Ohio are 

complete and as accurate as possible 

given the input data available for the 

relevant source categories. EPA also 

believes that these inventories provide 

information about VOC and ammonia as 

PM2.5 precursors in the context of 

evaluating redesignation of the Ohio 

portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area 

under subpart 4. Therefore, we are 

proposing to approve the ammonia and 

VOC emissions inventories submitted 

by Ohio, in conjunction with the NOX, 

direct PM2.5, and SO2 emissions 

inventories that EPA previously 

proposed to approve, as fully meeting 

the comprehensive inventory 

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

CAA for the Ohio portion of the 

Parkersburg-Marietta area for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard. Since EPA’s 

prior proposal addressed other 

precursor emissions inventories, EPA in 

this supplemental proposal is seeking 

comment only with respect to the 

additional inventories for VOC and 

ammonia that Ohio has submitted. 

IV. Summary of Proposed Actions 

After fully considering the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision in the NRDC v. EPA 

on EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 Implementation 

rule, EPA in this supplemental notice is 

providing supplemental rationale for its 

action, published November 12, 2012, 

which proposed to redesignate the Ohio 

portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta area 

to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, to approve the associated 

maintenance plan, and to approve the 

state’s emission inventory. EPA is 

concluding that the D.C. Circuit 

decision regarding the applicability of 

the requirements of subpart 4 of part D 

of title I of the CAA does not change the 

applicable requirements for 

redesignation of the Parkersburg area to 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In 

addition, in this supplemental notice, 

EPA is addressing an enhanced 2007/ 

2008 inventory that now addresses 

ammonia and VOC emissions, in 

conjunction with the NOX, direct PM2.5

and SO2 inventories that EPA 

previously proposed to approve, thus 

providing additional basis for EPA’s 

prior proposal that Ohio has met the 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

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

CAA for this area. EPA is seeking 

comment only on the issues raised in its 

supplemental proposals, and is not reopening comment on other issues 

addressed in its prior proposal. 

V. 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, these proposed 

actions do not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law and the CAA. For that reason, 

these proposed actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because a 

determination of attainment is an action 

that affects the status of a geographical 

area and does not impose any new 

regulatory requirements on tribes, 

impact any existing sources of air 

pollution on tribal lands, nor impair the 

maintenance of ozone national ambient 

air quality standards in tribal lands. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38265 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: June 13, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15301 Filed 6–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 10–90; DA 13–1396] 

Wireline Competition Bureau Adds 

Two New Discussion Topics to 

Connect America Cost Model Virtual 

Workshop 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau adds two 

new virtual workshop discussion topics, 

entitled ‘‘Community Anchor 

Institutions’’ and ‘‘Business Locations’’ 

to seek public input. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

July 15, 2013. 

If you anticipate that you will be 

submitting comments, but find it 

difficult to do so within the period of 

time allowed by this notice, you should 

advise the contact listed below as soon 

as possible. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket No. 10–90, by 

any of the following methods: 

D Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

D Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

D Virtual Workshop: In addition to 

the usual methods for filing electronic 

comments, the Commission is allowing 

comments, reply comments, and ex 

parte comments in this proceeding to be 

filed by posting comments at http:// 

www.fcc.gov/blog/wcb-cost-modelvirtual-workshop-2012. 

D People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katie King, Wireline Competition 

Bureau at (202) 418–7491 or TTY (202) 

418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Wireline Competition 

Bureau’s Public Notice in WC Docket 

No. 10–90; DA 13–1396, released June 

17, 2013, as well as information posted 

online in the Wireline Competition 

Bureau’s Virtual Workshop. The 

complete text of the Public Notice is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

These documents may also be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 445 12th Street 

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554, telephone (800) 378–3160 or 

(202) 863–2893, facsimile (202) 863– 

2898, or via the Internet at http:// 

www.bcpiweb.com. In addition, the 

Virtual Workshop may be accessed via 

the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/blog/ 

wcb-cost-model-virtual-workshop-2012. 

1. On Tuesday, October 9, 2012, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) 

announced the commencement of a 

virtual workshop to solicit input and 

facilitate discussion on topics related to 

the development and adoption of the 

forward-looking cost model for Connect 

America Phase II. To date, the Bureau 

has sought comment on 26 different 

topics in the virtual workshop. 

2. The Bureau adds two new virtual 

workshop discussion topics, entitled 

‘‘Community Anchor Institutions’’ and 

‘‘Business Locations.’’ Responses should 

be submitted in the virtual workshop no 

later than July 15, 2013. Parties can 

participate in the virtual workshop by 

visiting the Connect America Fund Web 

page, http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/ 

connecting-america, and following the 

link to the virtual workshop. 

3. Comments from the virtual 

workshop will be included in the 

official public record of this proceeding. 

The Bureau will not rely on anonymous 

comments posted during the workshop 

in reaching decisions regarding the 

model. Participants should be aware 

that identifying information from parties 

that post material in the virtual 

workshop will be publicly available for 

inspection upon request, even though 

such information may not be posted in 

the workshop forums. 

I. Procedural Matters 

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis 

4. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Bureau prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), 

included as part of the Model Design 

PN, 77 FR 38804, June 29, 2012, of the 

possible significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in these 

Public Notices and the information 

posted online in the Virtual Workshops. 

We have reviewed the IRFA and have 

determined that is does not need to be 

supplemented. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

5. This document does not contain 

proposed information collection(s) 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 

C. Filing Requirements 

6. Comments and Replies. Pursuant to 

sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. 

D Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th Street SW., Room TW–A325, 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS