Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38247 

and the amount deposited in the 

Copyright Office was either too high or 

too low, 

(1) If the original Statement of 

Account was not filed and signed 

electronically, the request must be 

accompanied by an affidavit under the 

official seal of any officer authorized to 

administer oaths within the United 

States, a statement in accordance with 

Section 1746 of title 28 of the United 

States, made and signed in accordance 

with paragraph (e)(14) of this Section. In 

the alternative, the cable operator may 

choose to file an amended Statement of 

Account signed and certified in Space O 

of the amended statement. The affidavit, 

statement, or amended Statement of 

Account shall describe the reasons why 

the royalty fee was improperly 

calculated and include a detailed 

analysis of the proper royalty 

calculations. If the filing official chooses 

to file an amended Statement of 

Account, this additional information 

may be included on the Statement of 

Account itself or may be set out in a 

written document attached to the 

Statement of Account. 

(2) If the original Statement of 

Account was filed and signed 

electronically, the filing official of the 

cable system shall electronically sign 

and file in accordance with paragraph 

(e)(15) of this Section an amended 

Statement of Account. The amended 

statement shall include on the amended 

statement itself, or in an attached 

written document, an explanation of 

why the royalty fee was improperly 

calculated and a detailed analysis of the 

proper royalty calculations. 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 18, 2013. 

Maria A. Pallante, 

Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15016 Filed 6–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0338; FRL–9827–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of 

the Wheeling 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 Wheeling, 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 (DC 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–2012–0338, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-Mail: 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– 

0338. 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), 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38248 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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, DC Circuit 

Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 

1. Background 

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 April 16, 2012, the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(OEPA) submitted a request to EPA to 

redesignate the Ohio portion of the 

Wheeling, West Virginia-Ohio 

nonattainment area (Belmont 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 the air quality in the Wheeling 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 

71371). 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 

Wheeling 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 Wheeling 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 April 16, 

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 Wheeling 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 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 Wheeling 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 Wheeling 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 Wheeling 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38249 

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. 

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 

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 Wheeling area, to the 

extent that implementation under 

subpart 4 would impose additional 

requirements for areas designated 

nonattainment, EPA believes that those 

requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of 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 Wheeling area 

redesignation. Under its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA, EPA has 

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

as a threshold matter, that the part D 

provisions which are ‘‘applicable’’ and 

which must be approved in order for 

EPA to redesignate an area include only 

those which came due prior to a state’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992 (Calcagni memorandum). See also 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993 (Shapiro 

memorandum); Final Redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 

12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final 

Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 

FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003); 

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

(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation and expressly rejecting 

Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of 

‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is 

‘‘whatever should have been in the plan 

at the time of attainment rather than 

whatever actually was in the plan and 

already implemented or due at the time 

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

that 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 

Wheeling 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 Wheeling 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 April 16, 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38250 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and 

distinguished in a recent D.C. Circuit decision that 

addressed retroactivity in a quite different context, 

where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to give 

its regulations retroactive effect. National 

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

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

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

(2011). 

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. 

effect to such requirements when the 

state had no notice that it was required 

to meet them. The DC Circuit 

recognized the inequity of this type of 

retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. 

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

where it upheld the District Court’s 

ruling refusing to make retroactive 

EPA’s determination that the St. Louis 

area did not meet its attainment 

deadline. In that case, petitioners urged 

the Court to make EPA’s nonattainment 

determination effective as of the date 

that the statute required, rather than the 

later date on which EPA actually made 

the determination. The Court rejected 

this view, stating that applying it 

‘‘would likely impose large costs on 

States, which would face fines and suits 

for not implementing air pollution 

prevention plans . . . even though they 

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

68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable 

to penalize 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 Wheeling area 

still qualifies for redesignation to 

attainment. As explained below, EPA 

believes that the redesignation request 

for the Ohio portion of the Wheeling 

area, though not expressed in terms of 

subpart 4 requirements, substantively 

meets the requirements of that subpart 

for purposes of redesignating the area to 

attainment. 

With respect to evaluating the 

relevant substantive requirements of 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the Ohio portion of the Wheeling area, 

EPA notes that subpart 4 incorporates 

components of subpart 1 of part D, 

which contains general air quality 

planning requirements for areas 

designated as nonattainment. See 

Section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains 

specific planning and scheduling 

requirements for PM10 3 nonattainment 

areas, and under the 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 Wheeling area meets 

the requirements for redesignation 

under subpart 1. These subpart 1 

requirements include, among other 

things, provisions for attainment 

demonstrations, reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), reasonable 

further progress (RFP), emissions 

inventories, and contingency measures. 

For the purposes of this redesignation, 

in order to identify any additional 

requirements which would apply under 

subpart 4, we are considering the Ohio 

portion of the Wheeling area to be a 

‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

Under section 188 of the CAA, all areas 

designated nonattainment areas under 

subpart 4 would initially be classified 

by operation of law as ‘‘moderate’’ 

nonattainment areas, and would remain 

moderate nonattainment areas unless 

and until EPA reclassifies the area as a 

‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area.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. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38251 

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. 

‘‘General Preamble for the Interpretation 

of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990’’; (57 FR 13498, 

13564, April 16, 1992). 

The General Preamble also explained 

that 

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

directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by 

the applicable date. These requirements no 

longer apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for redesignation. 

Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance 

plans . . . provides specific requirements for 

contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas. 

Id. 

EPA similarly stated in its 1992 

Calcagni memorandum that, ‘‘The 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress and other measures needed for 

attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning for areas not attaining the 

standard.’’ 

It is evident that even if we were to 

consider the Court’s January 4, 2013, 

decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that 

attainment-related requirements specific 

to subpart 4 should be imposed 

retroactively 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 Wheeling 

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 D.C. Circuit, 

contained rebuttable presumptions 

concerning certain PM2.5 precursors 

applicable to attainment plans and 

control measures related to those plans. 

Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA 

provided, among other things, that a 

state was ‘‘not required to address VOC 

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

plan precursor[s] and to evaluate 

sources of VOC [and ammonia] 

emissions in the State for control 

measures.’’ EPA intended these to be 

rebuttable presumptions. EPA 

established these presumptions at the 

time because of uncertainties regarding 

the emission inventories for these 

pollutants and the effectiveness of 

specific control measures in various 

regions of the country in reducing PM2.5

concentrations. EPA also left open the 

possibility for such regulation of VOC 

and ammonia in specific areas where 

that was necessary. 

The Court in its January 4, 2013, 

decision made reference to both section 

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

that, ‘‘In light of our disposition, we 

need not address the petitioners’ 

challenge to the presumptions in [40 

CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic 

compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5

precursors, as subpart 4 expressly 

governs precursor presumptions.’’ 

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

Elsewhere in the Court’s opinion, 

however, the Court observed: 

Ammonia is a precursor to fine particulate 

matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5

and PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area 

governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 

presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7513a(e) [section 189(e)]. 

Id. at 21, n.7. 

For a number of reasons, EPA believes 

that 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 Wheeling 

area, EPA believes that doing so would 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38252 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 Wheeling 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). 

not affect the approvability of the 

proposed redesignation of the area for 

the 1997 PM2.5 standard. The entire 

Wheeling area has attained the standard 

without any specific additional controls 

of VOC and ammonia emissions from 

any sources in the area. 

Precursors in subpart 4 are 

specifically regulated under the 

provisions of section 189(e), which 

requires, with important exceptions, 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of PM10 precursors.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 Wheeling 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 

Wheeling 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 

Wheeling 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 Wheeling 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 Wheeling area. In 

the context of a redesignation, the area 

has shown that it has attained the 

standard. Moreover, the state has shown 

and EPA has proposed to determine that 

attainment in this area is due to 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions on all precursors necessary 

to provide for continued attainment. It 

follows logically that no further control 

of additional precursors is necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA does not view the 

January 4, 2013, decision of the Court as 

precluding redesignation of the Ohio 

portion of the Wheeling 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 Wheeling area under subpart 4 

rather than under subpart 1, as 

interpreted in EPA’s remanded PM2.5

implementation rule, EPA would still 

conclude that the area had met all 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with 

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

d. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of 

Precursors 

With regard to the redesignation of 

the Ohio portion of the Wheeling 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 Wheeling 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38253 

12Electric generating units. 13Emissions projections for the on-road sector 

were generated using the MOVES model. 

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 Wheeling area 

need not include any additional 

emission reductions of VOC or ammonia 

in order to provide for continued 

maintenance of the standard. 

First, as noted above in EPA’s 

discussion of section 189(e), VOC 

emission levels in this area have 

historically been well controlled under 

SIP requirements related to ozone and 

other pollutants. Second, total ammonia 

emissions throughout the Ohio portion 

of the Wheeling area are very low, 

estimated to be less than 500 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 no precursor, 

including VOC and ammonia, is 

expected to increase over the 

maintenance period so as to interfere 

with or undermine the state’s 

maintenance demonstration. 

Ohio’s maintenance plan shows that 

emissions of direct PM2.5, SO2, and NOX

are projected to decrease by 212.68 tons 

per year (tpy), 31,342.08 tpy, and 

2,137.21 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 1,155.91 tpy, 

and that ammonia emissions will 

decrease by 17.98 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 and ammonia emissions would not 

continue through 2022. Given that the 

Wheeling area is already attaining the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS even with the 

current level of emissions from sources 

in the area, the downward trend of 

emissions from VOC and ammonia 

inventories would be consistent with 

continued attainment 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 and ammonia 

emissions were to increase 

unexpectedly 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 WHEELING AREA

[Belmont County, Ohio] 

Sector 

Direct PM2.5

2005 2008 2015 2022 Net change 

2005–2022 

Point ....................................................................................................... 3.39 3.39 3.94 4 .40 1.01 

EGU 12 .................................................................................................... 93.85 69.58 20.87 0 ¥93.85 

Area ....................................................................................................... 307.93 305.38 297.20 289 .22 ¥18.71 

Non-road ................................................................................................ 33.60 29.80 20.84 11 .89 ¥21.71 

On-road 13 .............................................................................................. 105.74 88.66 45.08 26 .32 ¥79.42 

Total ................................................................................................ 544.51 496.81 387.93 331 .83 ¥212.68 

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

OHIO PORTION OF THE WHEELING AREA

[Belmont County, Ohio] 

Sector 

SO2

2005 2008 2015 2022 Net change 

2005–2022 

Point ....................................................................................................... 0.13 0.07 0.10 0 .11 ¥0.02 

EGU ....................................................................................................... 37,329.95 15,126.00 8,783.33 6,065 .04 ¥31,264.91 

Area ....................................................................................................... 93.50 92.24 87.16 82 .29 ¥11.21 

Non-road ................................................................................................ 44.82 24.46 8.23 3 .51 ¥41.31 

On-road .................................................................................................. 30.84 9.38 6.72 6 .21 ¥24.63 

Total ................................................................................................ 37,499.24 15,252.15 8,885.54 6,157 .16 ¥31,342.08 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38254 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

14These emissions estimates were taken from the 

emissions inventories developed for the RIA for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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

OHIO PORTION OF THE WHEELING AREA

[Belmont County, Ohio] 

Sector 

NOX

2005 2008 2015 2022 Net change 

2005–2022 

Point ......................................................................................................... 22.76 20.67 20.19 18.90 ¥3.86 

EGU ......................................................................................................... 4,149.93 4,167.94 4,477.58 4,738.00 588.07 

Area ......................................................................................................... 284.66 286.90 286.77 287.15 2.49 

Non-road .................................................................................................. 484.31 444.10 306.14 172.31 ¥312 

On-road .................................................................................................... 3,179.52 2,593.58 1,279.25 587.61 ¥2,591.91 

Total .................................................................................................. 8,121.18 7,513.19 6,369.93 5,803.97 ¥2,137.21 

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

OHIO PORTION OF THE WHEELING AREA

[Belmont County, Ohio] 14

Sector 

VOC Ammonia 

2007 2020 Net change 

2007–2020 2007 2020 Net change 2007–2020 

Point ................................................................................. 52.50 51.37 ¥1.13 56.94 56.09 ¥0.85 

Area .................................................................................. 777.12 774.54 ¥2.58 386.69 391.03 4.34 

Non-road .......................................................................... 418.70 218.65 ¥200.05 0.38 0.42 0.04 

On-road ............................................................................ 1,465.35 513.19 ¥952.16 48.10 26.58 ¥21.52 

Fires ................................................................................. 42.42 42.42 0 2.95 2.95 0 

Total .......................................................................... 2,756.08 1,600.17 ¥1,155.91 495.05 477.07 ¥17.98 

In addition, available air quality 

modeling analyses show continued 

maintenance of the standard during the 

maintenance period. The current air 

quality design value for the area is 13 

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 

Wheeling area is 8.4 mg/m3. Given that 

all precursor emissions are projected to 

decrease through 2022, it is reasonable 

to conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels 

in this area will also continue to 

decrease through 2022. 

Thus, EPA believes that there is 

ample justification to conclude that the 

Ohio portion of the Wheeling area 

should be redesignated, even taking into 

consideration the emissions of other 

precursors potentially relevant to PM2.5. 

After consideration of the D.C. Circuit’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 Wheeling 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 

Wheeling 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 Wheeling 

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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38255 

for LADCO was then used to develop 

temporal factors to reflect the impact of 

average meteorology on livestock 

emissions. 

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—WHEELING AREA AMMONIA AND VOC EMISSIONS (tpy) FOR 2007/2008 BY SOURCE SECTOR

Sector Ammonia VOC 

Point ................................................................................................................................................................................. 54.06 48.68 

Area ................................................................................................................................................................................. 405.94 863.87 

Non-road .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.37 430.01 

On-road ............................................................................................................................................................................ 52.82 1,376.69 

Total .......................................................................................................................................................................... 513.19 2,719.26 

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 Wheeling 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 

Wheeling 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 

proposing to proceed with approval of 

the request to redesignate the Ohio 

portion of the Wheeling area to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS and of the associated 

maintenance plan. 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 this 

supplemental notice, EPA is also 

proposing to approve the 2007/2008 

ammonia and VOC emissions 

inventories as meeting, in conjunction 

with the NOX, direct PM2.5 and SO2

inventories that EPA previously 

proposed to approve, the 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

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

CAA. EPA is seeking comment only on 

the issues raised in its supplemental 

proposals, and is not re-opening 

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 (Public Law 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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