```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 24, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44487-44494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17704]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0368; FRL-9836-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
West Virginia; Redesignation of the West Virginia Portion of the 
Wheeling, WV-OH 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area 
to Attainment and Approval of the Associated Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a supplement to its proposed approval of the 
State of West Virginia's request to redesignate the West Virginia 
portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) nonattainment area (Wheeling Area or Area) to 
attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 national ambient air 
quality standard (NAAQS). This supplemental proposal revises and 
expands the basis for proposing approval of the State's request in 
light of developments since EPA issued its initial proposal on December 
11, 2012. This supplemental proposal addresses the effects of the 
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia (D.C. Circuit Court) on January 4, 2013 to remand to EPA two 
final rules implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is seeking 
comment only on the issues raised in this supplemental proposal and is 
not reopening for comment other issues raised in its prior proposal.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2012-0368 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0368, Cristina Fernandez, Associate 
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2012-0368. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online 
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal 
are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental 
Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE., Charleston, 
West Virginia 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto, (215) 814-2182, or by 
email at quinto.rose@epa.gov.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding 
the PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4
    A. Background
    B. Supplemental Proposal on This Issue
    1. Applicable Requirements for Purposes of Evaluating the 
Redesignation Request
    2. Subpart 4 Requirements and Wheeling Area's Redesignation 
Request
    3. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5 Precursors
    4. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of Precursors
III. Ammonia and VOC Comprehensive Emissions Inventory
IV. Summary of Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On March 8, 2012, the State of West Virginia through the West 
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) formally 
submitted a request to redesignate the West Virginia portion of the 
Wheeling Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Concurrently, West Virginia submitted a 
maintenance plan for the Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued 
attainment throughout the Area over the next 10 years.
    On December 11, 2012 (77 FR 73575), EPA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPR) determining that the Wheeling Area has 
attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and that the Area has 
met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA). In the December 11, 2012 NPR, EPA proposed 
several actions related to the redesignation of the Area to attainment 
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. First, EPA proposed to 
approve West Virginia's request to change the legal definition of the 
West Virginia portion of the Wheeling Area from nonattainment to 
attainment for the

[[Page 44488]]

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Second, EPA proposed to approve the 
maintenance plan for the West Virginia portion of the Area as a 
revision to the West Virginia SIP because the plan meets the 
requirements of section 175A of the CAA. Third, EPA proposed to approve 
the insignificance determination for the onroad motor vehicle 
contribution of PM2.5, nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the West Virginia portion of the 
Area for transportation conformity purposes. Fourth, EPA proposed to 
approve the base year emissions inventory for PM2.5 
(including condensables), SO2 and NOX emissions. 
The emissions cover the general source categories of point sources, 
area sources, onroad mobile sources and nonroad mobile sources. EPA 
received no comments in response to the December 11, 2012 NPR proposing 
approval of the above described redesignation request, maintenance 
plan, insignificance determination and the base year emissions 
inventory. EPA is not reopening the public comment period to submit 
comment on the issues addressed in the December 11, 2012 NPR.
    EPA today is issuing a supplement to its December 11, 2012 NPR. 
This supplemental NPR addresses the recent decision of the D.C. Circuit 
Court which affects the proposed redesignation and which has arisen 
since the issuance of the NPR. The D.C. Circuit Court on January 4, 
2013 remanded to EPA two final rules implementing the PM2.5 
NAAQS. Therefore, EPA's supplemental proposal revises and expands the 
basis for EPA's proposed approval of West Virginia's request to 
redesignate the Wheeling Area to attainment for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS, in light of this development since EPA's 
initial NPR.

II. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding the 
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4

A. Background

    On January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 
the D.C. Circuit Court remanded to EPA the ``Final Clean Air Fine 
Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586 April 25, 2007) and the 
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final rule (73 FR 
28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, ``1997 PM2.5 
Implementation Rule''). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The D.C. Circuit 
Court found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS pursuant to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of 
Part D of Title I of the CAA, rather than the particulate-matter-
specific provisions of subpart 4 of Part D of Title I.

B. Supplemental Proposal on This Issue

    In this portion of EPA's supplemental proposal, EPA is soliciting 
comment on the limited issue of the effect of the D.C. Circuit Court's 
January 4, 2013 ruling on the proposed redesignation. As explained 
below, EPA is proposing to determine that the D.C. Circuit Court's 
January 4, 2013 decision does not prevent EPA from redesignating the 
Wheeling Area to attainment. Even in light of the D.C. Circuit Court's 
decision, redesignation for this Area is appropriate under the CAA and 
EPA's longstanding interpretations of the CAA's provisions regarding 
redesignation. EPA first explains its longstanding interpretation that 
requirements that are imposed, or that become due, after a complete 
redesignation request is submitted for an area that is attaining the 
standard, are not applicable for purposes of evaluating a redesignation 
request. Second, EPA then shows that, even if EPA applies the subpart 4 
requirements to the Wheeling Area redesignation request and disregards 
the provisions of its 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule 
recently remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court, the State's request for 
redesignation of this Area still qualifies for approval. EPA's 
discussion takes into account the effect of the D.C. Circuit Court's 
ruling on the Area's maintenance plan, which EPA views as approvable 
when subpart 4 requirements are considered.
1. Applicable Requirements for Purposes of Evaluating the Redesignation 
Request
    With respect to the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the 
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 ruling rejected EPA's reasons for 
implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with the 
provisions of subpart 1, and remanded that matter to EPA, so that it 
could address implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under 
subpart 4 of Part D of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For the 
purposes of evaluating West Virginia's redesignation request for the 
Wheeling Area, to the extent that implementation under subpart 4 would 
impose additional requirements for areas designated nonattainment, EPA 
believes that those requirements are not ``applicable'' for the 
purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, and thus EPA is not 
required to consider subpart 4 requirements with respect to the 
Wheeling Area redesignation. Under its longstanding interpretation of 
the CAA, EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a 
threshold matter, that the part D provisions which are ``applicable'' 
and which must be approved in order for EPA to redesignate an area 
include only those which came due prior to a state's submittal of a 
complete redesignation request. See ``Procedures for Processing 
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John 
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 
(Calcagni memorandum). See also ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to 
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum 
from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air and 
Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro memorandum); Final Redesignation 
of Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 12465-66, March 7, 1995); Final 
Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 FR 25418, 25424-27, May 12, 
2003); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding 
EPA's redesignation rulemaking applying this interpretation and 
expressly rejecting Sierra Club's view that the meaning of 
``applicable'' under the statute is ``whatever should have been in the 
plan at the time of attainment rather than whatever actually was in the 
plan and already implemented or due at the time of attainment'').\1\ In 
this case, at the time that West Virginia submitted its redesignation 
request, requirements under subpart 4 were not due, and indeed, were 
not yet known to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicable 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's view that, for purposes of evaluating the Wheeling Area 
redesignation, the subpart 4 requirements were not due at the time West 
Virginia submitted the redesignation request is in keeping with the 
EPA's interpretation of subpart 2 requirements for subpart 1 ozone 
areas redesignated subsequent to the D.C. Circuit Court's decision in 
South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 
2006). In South Coast, the D.C Circuit Court found that EPA was not 
permitted to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely under 
subpart 1, and held that EPA was required under the statute to 
implement

[[Page 44489]]

the standard under the ozone-specific requirements of subpart 2 as 
well. Subsequent to the South Coast decision, in evaluating and acting 
upon redesignation requests for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard that 
were submitted to EPA for areas under subpart 1, EPA applied its 
longstanding interpretation of the CAA that ``applicable 
requirements,'' for purposes of evaluating a redesignation, are those 
that had been due at the time the redesignation request was submitted. 
See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of Manitowoc County and Door County 
Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 22050, April 27, 2010). In those 
actions, EPA therefore did not consider subpart 2 requirements to be 
``applicable'' for the purposes of evaluating whether the area should 
be redesignated under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
    EPA's interpretation derives from the provisions of section 
107(d)(3) of the CAA. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an area 
to be redesignated, a state must meet ``all requirements `applicable' 
to the area under section 110 and part D.'' Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) 
provides that EPA must have fully approved the ``applicable'' SIP for 
the area seeking redesignation. These two sections read together 
support EPA's interpretation of ``applicable'' as only those 
requirements that came due prior to submission of a complete 
redesignation request.
    First, holding states to an ongoing obligation to adopt new CAA 
requirements that arose after the state submitted its redesignation 
request, in order to be redesignated, would make it problematic or 
impossible for EPA to act on redesignation requests in accordance with 
the 18-month deadline Congress set for EPA action in section 
107(d)(3)(D) of the CAA. If ``applicable requirements'' were 
interpreted to be a continuing flow of requirements with no reasonable 
limitation, states, after submitting a redesignation request, would be 
forced continuously to make additional SIP submissions that in turn 
would require EPA to undertake further notice-and-comment rulemaking 
actions to act on those submissions. This would create a regime of 
unceasing rulemaking that would delay action on the redesignation 
request beyond the 18-month timeframe provided by the CAA for this 
purpose.
    Second, a fundamental premise for redesignating a nonattainment 
area to attainment is that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS due 
to emission reductions from existing controls. Thus, an area for which 
a redesignation request has been submitted would have already attained 
the NAAQS as a result of satisfying statutory requirements that came 
due prior to the submission of the request. Absent a showing that 
unadopted and unimplemented requirements are necessary for future 
maintenance, it is reasonable to view the requirements applicable for 
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request as including only 
those SIP requirements that have already come due. These are the 
requirements that led to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, for 
redesignation approval, that a state also satisfy additional SIP 
requirements coming due after the state submits its complete 
redesignation request, and while EPA is reviewing it, would compel the 
state to do more than is necessary to attain the NAAQS, without a 
showing that the additional requirements are necessary for maintenance.
    In the context of the Wheeling redesignation, the timing and nature 
of the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA 
compound the consequences of imposing requirements that come due after 
the redesignation request is submitted. West Virginia submitted its 
redesignation request on March 8, 2012, but the D.C. Circuit Court did 
not issue its decision remanding EPA's 1997 PM2.5 
implementation rule concerning the applicability of the provisions of 
subpart 4 until January 2013.
    To require West Virginia's fully-completed and long-pending 
redesignation request to comply now with requirements of subpart 4 that 
the D.C. Circuit Court announced only on January 4, 2013, would be to 
give retroactive effect to such requirements when the State had no 
notice that it was required to meet them. The D.C. Circuit Court 
recognized the inequity of this type of retroactive impact in Sierra 
Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),\2\ where it upheld the 
D.C. District Court's ruling refusing to make retroactive EPA's 
determination that the St. Louis area did not meet its attainment 
deadline. In that case, petitioners urged the D.C. Circuit Court to 
make EPA's nonattainment determination effective as of the date that 
the statute required, rather than the later date on which EPA actually 
made the determination. The D.C. Circuit Court rejected this view, 
stating that applying it ``would likely impose large costs on States, 
which would face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution 
prevention plans . . . even though they were not on notice at the 
time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable to penalize West 
Virginia by rejecting its redesignation request for an area that is 
already attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standard and that met all 
applicable requirements known to be in effect at the time of the 
request. For EPA now to reject the redesignation request solely because 
the state did not expressly address subpart 4 requirements of which it 
had no notice, would inflict the same unfairness condemned by the D.C. 
Circuit Court in Sierra Club v. Whitman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and distinguished in a 
recent D.C. Circuit Court decision that addressed retroactivity in a 
quite different context, where, unlike the situation here, EPA 
sought to give its regulations retroactive effect. National 
Petrochemical and Refiners Ass'n v. EPA. 630 F.3d 145, 163 (D.C. 
Cir. 2010), rehearing denied 643 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert 
denied 132 S. Ct. 571 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Subpart 4 Requirements and Wheeling Area's Redesignation Request
    Even if EPA were to take the view that the D.C. Circuit Court's 
January 4, 2013 decision requires that, in the context of pending 
redesignations, subpart 4 requirements were due and in effect at the 
time the State submitted its redesignation request, EPA proposes to 
determine that the Wheeling Area still qualifies for redesignation to 
attainment. As explained below, EPA believes that the redesignation 
request for the Wheeling Area, though not expressed in terms of subpart 
4 requirements, substantively meets the requirements of that subpart 
for purposes of redesignating the area to attainment.
    With respect to evaluating the relevant substantive requirements of 
subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating the Wheeling Area, EPA notes 
that subpart 4 incorporates components of subpart 1 of part D, which 
contains general air quality planning requirements for areas designated 
as nonattainment. See Section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains 
specific planning and scheduling requirements for PM10 \3\ 
nonattainment areas, and under the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 
decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory requirements also apply 
for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has longstanding general 
guidance that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA, making 
recommendations to states for meeting the statutory requirements for 
SIPs for nonattainment areas. See, ``State Implementation Plans; 
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clear Air Act 
Amendments of 1990,'' (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) (the ``General 
Preamble''). In the General Preamble, EPA discussed the relationship of 
subpart 1 and subpart 4

[[Page 44490]]

SIP requirements, and pointed out that subpart 1 requirements were to 
an extent ``subsumed by, or integrally related to, the more specific 
PM10 requirements.'' (57 FR 13538, April 16, 1992). EPA's 
December 11, 2012 NPR for this redesignation action addressed how the 
Wheeling Area meets the requirements for redesignation under subpart 1. 
These subpart 1 requirements include, among other things, provisions 
for attainment demonstrations, reasonably available control measures 
(RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), emissions inventories, and 
contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 
micrometers in diameter or smaller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of this redesignation, in order to identify any 
additional requirements which would apply under subpart 4, EPA is 
considering the Wheeling Area to be a ``moderate'' PM2.5 
nonattainment area. Under section 188 of the CAA, all areas designated 
nonattainment areas under subpart 4 would initially be classified by 
operation of law as ``moderate'' nonattainment areas, and would remain 
moderate nonattainment areas unless and until EPA reclassifies the area 
as a ``serious'' nonattainment area. Accordingly, EPA believes that it 
is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the potential impact of 
subpart 4 requirements to those that would be applicable to moderate 
nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 4 apply to 
moderate nonattainment areas and include the following: (1) An approved 
permit program for construction of new and modified major stationary 
sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); (2) an attainment demonstration 
(section 189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C)); 
and (4) quantitative milestones demonstrating RFP toward attainment by 
the applicable attainment date (section 189(c)).
    The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section 
189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit provisions 
requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM10, without adding 
to them. Consequently, EPA believes that section 189(a)(1)(A) does not 
itself impose for redesignation purposes any additional requirements 
for moderate areas beyond those contained in subpart 1.\4\ In any 
event, in the context of redesignation, EPA has long relied on the 
interpretation that a fully approved nonattainment new source review 
program is not considered an applicable requirement for redesignation, 
provided the area can maintain the standard with a prevention of 
significant deterioration (PSD) program after redesignation. A detailed 
rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, 
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 
entitled, ``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting 
Redesignation to Attainment.'' See also rulemakings for Detroit, 
Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, 
Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 
FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-
31837, June 21, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 
189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this redesignation is 
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under 
subpart 4,\5\ when EPA evaluates a redesignation request under either 
subpart 1 and/or 4, any area that is attaining the PM2.5 
standard is viewed as having satisfied the attainment planning 
requirements for these subparts. For redesignations, EPA has for many 
years interpreted attainment-linked requirements as not applicable for 
areas attaining the standard. In the General Preamble, EPA stated that: 
``The requirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request for 
redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality data 
for the area must show that the area has already attained. Showing that 
the State will make RFP towards attainment will, therefore, have no 
meaning at that point.'' See General Preamble for the Interpretation of 
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; (57 FR 13498, 13564, 
April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, milestone 
requirements, contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The General Preamble also explained that: ``[t]he section 172(c)(9) 
requirements are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the 
applicable date. These requirements no longer apply when an area has 
attained the standard and is eligible for redesignation. Furthermore, 
section 175A for maintenance plans . . . provides specific requirements 
for contingency measures that effectively supersede the requirements of 
section 172(c)(9) for these areas.'' Id. EPA similarly stated in its 
1992 Calcagni memorandum that, ``The requirements for reasonable 
further progress and other measures needed for attainment will not 
apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not 
attaining the standard.''
    It is evident that even if we were to consider the D.C. Circuit 
Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that 
attainment-related requirements specific to subpart 4 should be imposed 
retroactively \6\ and thus are now past due, those requirements do not 
apply to an area that is attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standard, 
for the purpose of evaluating a pending request to redesignate the area 
to attainment. EPA has consistently enunciated this interpretation of 
applicable requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA since the 
General Preamble was published more than twenty years ago. Courts have 
recognized the scope of EPA's authority to interpret ``applicable 
requirements'' in the redesignation context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 
375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As EPA has explained above, we do not believe that the D.C. 
Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision should be interpreted so as 
to impose these requirements on the states retroactively. Sierra 
Club v. Whitman, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, even outside the context of redesignations, EPA has 
viewed the obligations to submit attainment-related SIP planning 
requirements of subpart 4 as inapplicable for areas that EPA determines 
are attaining the standard. EPA's prior ``Clean Data Policy'' 
rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also governed by the 
requirements of subpart 4, explain EPA's reasoning. They describe the 
effects of a determination of attainment on the attainment-related SIP 
planning requirements of subpart 4. See ``Determination of Attainment 
for Coso Junction Nonattainment Area,'' (75 FR 27944, May 19, 2010). 
See also Coso Junction proposed PM10 redesignation, (75 FR 
36023, 36027, June 24, 2010); Proposed and Final Determinations of 
Attainment for San Joaquin Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 40954-55, 
July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 63641, 63643-47 October 30, 2006). In short, 
EPA in this context has also long concluded that to require states to 
meet superfluous SIP planning requirements is not necessary and not 
required by the CAA, so long as those areas continue to attain the 
relevant NAAQS.
    In its December 11, 2012 NPR for this action, EPA proposed to 
determine that the Wheeling Area has attained the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS and therefore meets the attainment-related plan requirements of 
subpart 1. Under its longstanding interpretation, EPA is proposing to 
determine here that the Area also meets the attainment-related plan 
requirements of subpart 4.
    Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude that the requirements to submit 
an attainment demonstration under 189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination 
under section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(c), and a RFP 
demonstration under 189(c)(1) are satisfied for

[[Page 44491]]

purposes of evaluating the redesignation request.
3. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5 Precursors
    The D.C. Circuit Court in NRDC v. EPA remanded to EPA the two rules 
at issue in the case with instructions to EPA to re-promulgate them 
consistent with the requirements of subpart 4. The D.C. Circuit Court's 
opinion raises the issue of the appropriate approach to addressing 
PM2.5 precursors in this and future EPA actions. While past 
implementation of subpart 4 for PM10 has allowed for control 
of PM10 precursors such as NOX from major 
stationary, mobile, and area sources in order to attain the standard as 
expeditiously as practicable, CAA section 189(e) specifically provides 
that control requirements for major stationary sources of direct 
PM10 shall also apply to PM10 precursors from 
those sources, except where EPA determines that major stationary 
sources of such precursors ``do not contribute significantly to 
PM10 levels which exceed the standard in the area.''
    EPA's 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, remanded by the 
D.C. Circuit Court, contained rebuttable presumptions concerning 
certain PM2.5 precursors applicable to attainment plans and 
control measures related to those plans. Specifically, in 40 CFR 
51.1002, EPA provided, among other things, that a state was ``not 
required to address VOC [and NH3] as . . . PM2.5 
attainment plan precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of VOC [and 
NH3] emissions in the State for control measures.'' EPA 
intended these to be rebuttable presumptions. EPA established these 
presumptions at the time because of uncertainties regarding the 
emission inventories for these pollutants and the effectiveness of 
specific control measures in various regions of the country in reducing 
PM2.5 concentrations. EPA also left open the possibility for 
such regulation of NH3 and VOC in specific areas where that 
was necessary.
    The D.C. Circuit Court in its January 4, 2013 decision made 
reference to both section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.1002, and stated that, 
``In light of our disposition, we need not address the petitioners' 
challenge to the presumptions in [40 CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic 
compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5 precursors, as subpart 4 
expressly governs precursor presumptions.'' NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10.
    Elsewhere in the D.C. Circuit Court's opinion, however, the Court 
observed: ``NH3 is a precursor to fine particulate matter, 
making it a precursor to both PM2.5 and PM10. For 
a PM10 nonattainment area governed by subpart 4, a precursor 
is presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 7513a(e) [section 189(e)].'' 
Id. at 21, n.7.
    For a number of reasons, EPA believes that its proposed 
redesignation of the Wheeling Area is consistent with the D.C. Circuit 
Court's decision on this aspect of subpart 4. First, while the D.C. 
Circuit Court, citing section 189(e), stated that ``for a 
PM10 area governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 
`presumptively regulated,' '' the D.C. Circuit Court expressly declined 
to decide the specific challenge to EPA's 1997 PM2.5 
implementation rule provisions regarding NH3 and VOC as 
precursors. The D.C. Circuit Court had no occasion to reach whether and 
how it was substantively necessary to regulate any specific precursor 
in a particular PM2.5 nonattainment area, and did not 
address what might be necessary for purposes of acting upon a 
redesignation request.
    However, even if EPA takes the view that the requirements of 
subpart 4 were deemed applicable at the time the state submitted the 
redesignation request, and disregards the implementation rule's 
rebuttable presumptions regarding NH3 and VOC as 
PM2.5 precursors, the regulatory consequence would be to 
consider the need for regulation of all precursors from any sources in 
the area to demonstrate attainment and to apply the section 189(e) 
provisions to major stationary sources of precursors. In the case of 
Wheeling Area, EPA believes that doing so would not affect the 
approvability of the proposed redesignation of the Area for the 1997 
PM2.5 standard. The Wheeling Area has attained the standard 
without any specific additional controls of NH3 and VOC 
emissions from any sources in the area.
    Precursors in subpart 4 are specifically regulated under the 
provisions of section 189(e), which requires, with important 
exceptions, control requirements for major stationary sources of 
PM10 precursors.\7\ Under subpart 1 and EPA's prior 
implementation rule, all major stationary sources of PM2.5 
precursors were subject to regulation, with the exception of 
NH3 and VOC. Thus we must address here whether additional 
controls of NH3 and VOC from major stationary sources are 
required under section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to redesignate the 
Wheeling Area for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. As explained 
below, we do not believe that any additional controls of NH3 
and VOC are required in the context of this redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Under 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the General Preamble, EPA discusses its approach to implementing 
section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538-13542. With regard to precursor 
regulation under section 189(e), the General Preamble explicitly stated 
that control of VOCs under other CAA requirements may suffice to 
relieve a state from the need to adopt precursor controls under section 
189(e). See 57 FR 13542. EPA in this supplemental proposal proposes to 
determine that the West Virginia SIP has met the provisions of section 
189(e) with respect to NH3 and VOCs as precursors. This 
proposed supplemental determination is based on our findings that (1) 
the Wheeling Area contains no major stationary sources of 
NH3, and (2) existing major stationary sources of VOC are 
adequately controlled under other provisions of the CAA regulating the 
ozone NAAQS.\8\ In the alternative, EPA proposes to determine that, 
under the express exception provisions of section 189(e), and in the 
context of the redesignation of the Wheeling Area, which is attaining 
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, at present NH3 
and VOC precursors from major stationary sources do not contribute 
significantly to levels exceeding the 1997 annual PM2.5 
standard in the Wheeling Area. See 57 FR 13539-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Wheeling Area has reduced VOC emissions through the 
implementation of various control programs including VOC Reasonably 
Available Control Technology regulations (45CSR21) and various on-
road and non-road motor vehicle control programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule 
provisions in 40 CFR 51.1002 were not directed at evaluation of 
PM2.5 precursors in the context of redesignation, but at SIP 
plans and control measures required to bring a nonattainment area into 
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. By contrast, 
redesignation to attainment primarily requires the area to have already 
attained due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and to 
demonstrate that controls in place can continue to maintain the 
standard. Thus, even if we regard the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 
2013 decision as calling for ``presumptive regulation'' of 
NH3 and VOC for PM2.5 under the attainment 
planning provisions of subpart 4, those provisions in and of themselves 
do not require additional controls of these precursors for an area that 
already qualifies for redesignation. Nor does EPA believe that 
requiring

[[Page 44492]]

West Virginia to address precursors differently than they have already 
would result in a substantively different outcome.
    Although, as EPA has emphasized, its consideration here of 
precursor requirements under subpart 4 is in the context of a 
redesignation to attainment, EPA's existing interpretation of subpart 4 
requirements with respect to precursors in attainment plans for 
PM10 contemplates that states may develop attainment plans 
that regulate only those precursors that are necessary for purposes of 
attainment in the area in question, i.e., states may determine that 
only certain precursors need be regulated for attainment and control 
purposes.\9\ Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of 
subpart 4 for PM10.\10\ EPA believes that application of 
this approach to PM2.5 precursors under subpart 4 is 
reasonable. Because the Wheeling Area has already attained the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS with its current approach to regulation 
of PM2.5 precursors, EPA believes that it is reasonable to 
conclude in the context of this redesignation that there is no need to 
revisit the attainment control strategy with respect to the treatment 
of precursors. Even if the D.C. Circuit Court's decision is construed 
to impose an obligation, in evaluating this redesignation request, to 
consider additional precursors under subpart 4, it would not affect 
EPA's approval here of West Virginia's request for redesignation of the 
Wheeling Area. In the context of a redesignation, the Area has shown 
that it has attained the standard. Moreover, the State has shown and 
EPA has proposed to determine that attainment in this Area is due to 
permanent and enforceable emissions reductions on all precursors 
necessary to provide for continued attainment. It follows logically 
that no further control of additional precursors is necessary. 
Accordingly, EPA does not view the January 4, 2013 decision of the D.C. 
Circuit Court as precluding redesignation of the Wheeling Area to 
attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans for California--San Joaquin Valley PM10 
Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-
Hour and Annual PM10 Standards,'' 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 
2004) (approving a PM10 attainment plan that imposes 
controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and 
did not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or ammonia 
emissions).
    \10\ See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et al., 423 
F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, even if West Virginia were required to address 
precursors for the Wheeling Area under subpart 4 rather than under 
subpart 1, as interpreted in EPA's remanded PM2.5 
implementation rule, EPA would still conclude that the area had met all 
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation in accordance 
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) of the CAA.
4. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of Precursors
    With regard to the redesignation of West Virginia, in evaluating 
the effect of the D.C. Circuit Court's remand of EPA's implementation 
rule, which included presumptions against consideration of VOC and 
ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, EPA in this supplemental 
proposal is also considering the impact of the decision on the 
maintenance plan required under sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of 
the CAA. To begin with, EPA notes that the Area has attained the 1997 
annual PM2.5 standard and that the State has shown that 
attainment of that standard is due to permanent and enforceable 
emission reductions.
    In the December 11, 2012 NPR, EPA proposed to determine that the 
State's maintenance plan shows continued maintenance of the standard by 
tracking the levels of the precursors whose control brought about 
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in the Wheeling 
Area. EPA therefore, believes that the only additional consideration 
related to the maintenance plan requirements that results from the D.C. 
Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision, is that of assessing the 
potential role of NH3 and VOC in demonstrating continued 
maintenance in this Area. Based upon documentation provided by the 
State and supporting information, EPA believes that the maintenance 
plan for the Wheeling Area need not include any additional emission 
reductions of NH3 or VOC in order to provide for continued 
maintenance of the standard.
    First, as noted above in EPA's discussion of section 189(e), VOC 
emission levels in this Area have historically been well-controlled 
under SIP requirements related to ozone and other pollutants. Second, 
total NH3 emissions throughout the Wheeling Area are very 
low, estimated to be less than 800 tons per year. See Table 2. This 
amount of NH3 emissions appears especially small in 
comparison to the total amounts of SO2, NOX, and 
even direct PM2.5 emissions from sources in the Area. Third, 
as described below, available information shows that no precursor, 
including NH3 and VOC, is expected to increase over the 
maintenance period so as to interfere with or undermine the State's 
maintenance demonstration.
    West Virginia's maintenance plan shows that emissions of direct 
PM2.5, SO2, and NOX are projected to 
decrease by 2,529 tons per year (tpy), 35,616 tpy, and 20,581 tpy, 
respectively, over the maintenance period. See Table 1. In addition, 
emissions inventories used in the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for 
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS show that VOC and NH3 
emissions are projected to decrease by 2,209 tpy between 2007 and 2020. 
NH3 emissions are projected to increase by 59 tpy between 
2007 and 2020. See Table 2. Given that the Wheeling Area is already 
attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS even with the current level 
of emissions from sources in the Area, the downward trend of emissions 
inventories would be consistent with continued attainment. Indeed, 
projected emissions reductions for the precursors that the State is 
addressing for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS indicate 
that the Area should continue to attain the NAAQS following the 
precursor control strategy that the State has already elected to 
pursue.
    Even if VOC and ammonia emissions were to increase unexpectedly 
between 2007 and 2020, the overall emissions reductions projected in 
direct PM2.5, SO2, and NOX would be 
sufficient to offset any increases. For these reasons, EPA believes 
that local emissions of all of the potential PM2.5 
precursors will not increase to the extent that they will cause 
monitored PM2.5 levels to violate the 1997 PM2.5 
standard during the maintenance period.

  Table 1--Comparison of 2008, 2015, 2022 SO2, NOX, and Direct PM2.5 Emission Totals in Tons per Year (tpy) for
                                         the Wheeling Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   SO2               NOX              PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008......................................................            67,103            35,971             6.001
2015......................................................            36,843            16,204             3,436

[[Page 44493]]

 
2022......................................................            31,487            15,390             3,472
Decrease from 2008 to 2022................................            35,616            20,581             2,529
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Table 2--Comparison of 2007 and 2020 VOC and Ammonia Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Wheeling Nonattainment Area \11\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                VOC                                             NH3
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Sector                                                             Net change                                      Net change
                                                               2007            2020          2007-2020         2007            2020          2007-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................             396             402               6              89             186              97
Area....................................................           1,686           1,651             -35             532             538               6
Nonroad.................................................             999             514            -485               1               1               0
On-road.................................................           2,469             774          -1,695              86              42             -44
Fires...................................................              70              70               0               5               5               0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................           5,621           3,412          -2,209             713             772              59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, available air quality modeling analyses show continued 
maintenance of the standard during the maintenance period. The current 
air quality design value for the Area is 13.0 micrograms per cubic 
meter ([mu]g/m\3\) (based on 2009-2011 air quality data), which is well 
below the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [mu]g/m\3\. 
Moreover, the modeling analysis conducted for the RIA for the 2012 
PM2.5 indicates that the design value for this Area is 
expected to continue to decline through 2020. In the RIA analysis, the 
2020 modeled design value for the Wheeling Area is 8.4 [mu]g/m\3\. 
Given that precursor emissions are projected to decrease through 2020, 
it is reasonable to conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels in 
this Area will also continue to decrease in 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ These emissions estimates were taken from the emissions 
inventories developed for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS. NH3 increases are due to some (~5%) increase in 
fertilizer application, but mostly from EGU, and with huge 
SO2 (point) reductions (88,229 in 2007 and 14,285 in 
2020) would offset any increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, EPA believes that there is ample justification to conclude 
that the Wheeling Area should be redesignated, even taking into 
consideration the emissions of other precursors potentially relevant to 
PM2.5. After consideration of the D.C. Circuit Court's 
January 4, 2013 decision, and for the reasons set forth in this 
supplemental notice, EPA continues to propose approval of West 
Virginia's maintenance plan and its request to redesignate the Wheeling 
Area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard.

III. Ammonia and Volatile Organic Compound Comprehensive Emissions 
Inventory

    EPA in this proposal also addresses the State's submission that 
provides additional information concerning NH3 and VOC 
emissions in the area in order to meet the emissions inventory 
requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. Section 172(c)(3) of the 
CAA requires states to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current 
emissions inventory for the attainment area. For purposes of the 
PM2.5 NAAQS, this emissions inventory should address not 
only direct emissions of PM2.5, but also emissions of all 
precursors with the potential to participate in PM2.5 
formation, i.e., SO2, NOX, VOC and 
NH3.
    In the December 11, 2012 NPR (77 FR 73575), EPA proposed to approve 
the emissions inventory information requirement for the Wheeling Area. 
On June 24, 2013, West Virginia supplemented its submittal with the 
2008 emission inventories for NH3 and VOC. The additional 
emission inventories information provided by the State addresses 
emissions of NH3 and VOC from the general source categories 
of point sources, area sources, onroad mobile sources, and nonroad 
sources. See Table 3. The state-submitted inventories were based on the 
data that West Virginia certified and submitted to the 2008 National 
Emissions Inventory (NEI) that is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html. The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed 
estimate of air emissions of both criteria and hazardous air pollutants 
from all air emissions sources. The NEI is prepared every three years 
by EPA based primarily upon emission estimates and emission model 
inputs provided by State, Local and Tribal air agencies.
    The NEI point data category contains emission estimates for sources 
that are individually inventory and located at a fixed, stationary 
location. Point sources include large industrial facilities and 
electric power plants. The NEI nonpoint data category contains 
emissions estimates for sources which individually are too small in 
magnitude or too numerous to inventory as individual point sources. The 
NEI onroad and nonroad data categories contain mobile sources which are 
estimated for the 2008 NEI version 3 via the MOVES2010b and NONROAD 
models, respectively. NONROAD was run within the National Mobile 
Inventory Model (NMIM).

 Table 3--Marshall County, Wheeling Area NH3 and VOC Emissions (tpy) by
                              Source Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Sector                           NH3        VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................................      31.85     320.50
Area..............................................      78.90   2,944.99
Nonroad...........................................       0.12     163.45
Onroad............................................      10.36     269.32
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................     121.23  3, 698.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has concluded that the 2008 NH3 and VOC emissions 
inventories provided by the State are complete and as accurate as 
possible given the input data available for the relevant categories. 
EPA also believes that these inventories provide information about 
NH3 and VOC as PM2.5 precursors in the context of 
evaluating redesignation of

[[Page 44494]]

the Wheeling Area under subpart 4. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
approve the NH3 and VOC emissions inventories submitted by 
the State, in conjunction with the NOx, direct PM2.5, and 
SO2 emissions inventories that EPA previously proposed to 
approve as fully meeting the comprehensive inventory requirement of 
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the Wheeling Area for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard. See (77 FR 7357, December 11, 2012). Since 
EPA's prior proposal addressed other precursor emissions inventories, 
EPA in this supplemental proposal is seeking comment only with respect 
to the additional inventories for NH3 and VOC that West 
Virginia has submitted.

IV. Proposed Action

    After fully considering the D.C. Circuit Court's decision in NRDC 
v. EPA on EPA's 1997 PM2.5 Implementation rule, EPA in this 
supplemental notice is proposing to proceed with approval of the 
request to redesignate the Wheeling Area to attainment for the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the associated maintenance plan. EPA 
in this supplemental notice is also proposing to approve the 2008 
NH3 and VOC emissions inventory as meeting, in conjunction 
with the direct PM2.5, NOX and SO2 
emissions inventory that EPA previously proposed to approve, the 
comprehensive emissions inventory requirements of section 172(c)(3) of 
the CAA. In addition, EPA in this supplemental action is proposing to 
proceed with the approval of the insignificance determination of the 
onroad motor vehicle contribution of PM2.5, NOX 
and SO2. EPA is seeking comment only on the issues raised in 
its supplemental proposal, and is not re-opening comment on other 
issues addressed in its prior proposal.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule pertaining to the redesignation of 
the West Virginia portion of the Wheeling WV-OH 1997 annual 
PM2.5 nonattainment area, does not have tribal implications 
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 8, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2013-17704 Filed 7-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```