Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; Redesignation of the Canton-Massillon Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Standards for Fine Particulate Matter, 48087-48103 [2013-18951]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 13. Technical Standards jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels. 7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 8. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. 9. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. 10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 11. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. 12. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. 14. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action may be one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves disestablishing a safety zone, so this action may be categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule. List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. § 165.120 [Removed] 2. Remove § 165.120 Safety Zone: Chelsea River, Boston Inner Harbor, Boston, MA. ■ Dated: July 22, 2013. J.C. O’Connor III, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston. [FR Doc. 2013–19104 Filed 8–6–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 48087 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0564; FRL–9844–2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; Redesignation of the Canton-Massillon Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Standards for Fine Particulate Matter Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: On June 26, 2012, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency submitted a request for EPA to redesignate the Canton-Massillon area (Stark County), Ohio, nonattainment area to attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour standards for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). EPA is proposing to grant Ohio’s request. EPA is proposing to determine that the Canton-Massillon area attains the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, based on the most recent three years of certified air quality data. EPA is proposing to approve, as revisions to the Ohio state implementation plan (SIP), the state’s plan for maintaining the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard) through 2025 for the area. EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 and 2008 emissions inventories for the Canton-Massillon area as meeting the comprehensive emissions inventory requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). Ohio’s maintenance plan submission includes a motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) for the mobile source contribution of PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) to the Canton-Massillon area for transportation conformity purposes; EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs for 2015 and 2025 into the Ohio SIP for transportation conformity purposes. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2013. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– OAR–2012–0564, 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 (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 48088 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section (AR– 18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012– 0564. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 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 Carolyn Persoon, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 353–8290 before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Persoon, Environmental Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8290, persoon.carolyn@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA? II. What actions is EPA proposing to take? III. What is the background for these actions? IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment? V. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s request? 1. Attainment 2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) (Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)) 3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)) 4. Ohio Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)) 5. Adequacy of Ohio’s MVEB 6. 2005 and 2008 Comprehensive Emissions Inventory 7. Summary of Proposed Actions VI. What are the effects of EPA’s proposed actions? VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? When submitting comments, remember to: 1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). 2. Follow directions—EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. 7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. 8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. What actions is EPA proposing to take? EPA is proposing to take several actions related to redesignation of the Canton-Massillon area to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to determine that the area is attaining the NAAQS for PM2.5, based on quality-assured and state certified ambient air monitoring data for 2010–2012, the most recent three years of quality-assured data for the area. EPA is proposing to find that Ohio meets the requirements for redesignation of the Canton-Massillon area to attainment of the 1997 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Second, EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s annual PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Canton-Massillon area as a revision to the Ohio SIP, including the MVEB for PM2.5 and NOX emissions for the mobile source contribution of the Canton-Massillon area. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s emissions inventories as satisfying the requirement in section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for a current, accurate and comprehensive emission inventory. These emission inventories include primary PM2.5, NOX and sulfur dioxide (SO2) inventories included in its June 26, 2012, initial submittal and 2007 emissions for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ammonia inventories included in a supplemental submission to EPA on April 29, 2013. Therefore, EPA is proposing to grant the request from the state of Ohio to change the designation of Stark County (the Canton-Massillon area) from nonattainment to attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. III. What is the background for these actions? Fine particulate pollution can be emitted directly from a source (primary PM2.5) or formed secondarily through chemical reactions in the atmosphere involving precursor pollutants emitted from a variety of sources. Sulfates are a type of secondary particulate formed from SO2 emissions from power plants E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules and industrial facilities. Nitrates, another common type of secondary particulate, are formed from combustion emissions of NOX from power plants, mobile sources and other combustion sources. The first air quality standards for PM2.5 were promulgated on July 18, 1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated an annual standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) of ambient air, based on a three year average of the annual mean PM2.5 concentrations at each monitoring site. In the same rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour PM2.5 standard at 65 mg/m3, based on a three year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at each monitoring site. On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, EPA published air quality area designations for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard based on air quality data for calendar years 2001–2003. In that rulemaking, EPA designated the Canton-Massillon area as nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. On October 17, 2006, at 71 FR 61144, EPA retained the annual PM2.5 standard at 15 mg/m3 (2006 annual PM2.5 standard), but revised the 24-hour standard to 35 mg/m3, based again on the three-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations. In response to legal challenges of the 2006 annual PM2.5 standard, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit or Court) remanded this standard to EPA for further consideration. See American Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). On December 14, 2012, EPA finalized a rule revising the PM2.5 annual standard to 12 mg/m3 based on current scientific evidence regarding the protection of public health. Since the Canton-Massillon area is designated as nonattainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards, today’s proposed action addresses redesignation to attainment only for these standards. In this proposed redesignation, EPA takes into account the January 4, 2013, Court ruling in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, in which 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 (PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Also noted are the decisions of the D.C. Circuit regarding the status of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). In the first of the two Court decisions, the D.C. Circuit, on August 21, 2012, issued EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), which vacated and remanded CSAPR and ordered EPA to continue administering the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) ‘‘pending . . . development of a valid replacement.’’ EME Homer City at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all petitions for rehearing on January 24, 2013. On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. In that decision, the Court also ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR ‘‘pending the promulgation of a valid replacement.’’ EME Homer City, 696 F.3d at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all petitions for rehearing on January 24, 2013. EPA and other parties filed petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and agreed to review the D.C. Circuit’s decision in EME Homer City. The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari, by itself, does not alter the status of CAIR or CSAPR. At this time, CAIR remains in place. EPA has determined that the status of both CSAPR and CAIR do not affect the ability of the CantonMassillon area to attain or maintain the PM NAAQS, which is discussed in more detail in section V.3.aii. IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment? The CAA sets forth the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation provided that: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS based on current air quality data; (2) the Administrator has fully approved an applicable SIP for the area under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP, Federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the state containing the area has met all requirements applicable PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 48089 to the area for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA. V. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s request? EPA is proposing to redesignate the Canton-Massillon area to attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and is proposing to approve Ohio’s maintenance plan for the area and other related SIP revisions. The bases for these actions follow. 1. Attainment EPA is proposing to determine that the Canton-Massillon area is attaining the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based upon the most recent three years of complete, certified and quality-assured data. Under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the annual primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 mg/m3 at all monitoring sites in the area. Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR 50.13 and in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, the 24-hour primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration is less than or equal to 35 mg/m3. EPA has reviewed the ambient air quality monitoring data in the CantonMassillon area, consistent with the requirements contained at 40 CFR part 50. EPA’s review focused on state certified data recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database for the Canton-Massillon PM2.5 nonattainment area for 2009–2011 and for 2010–2012. The Canton-Massillon area has two monitors located in Stark County, Ohio. Preliminary calculations of design values for 2010–2012, the most recent three full years of data, the two monitors had design values of 13.0 and 11.8 mg/ m3 for the 1997 annual standard, and 29 and 26 mg/m3 for the 2006 24-hour standard. The monitors in the CantonMassillon area recorded complete data for 2010–2012 in accordance with criteria set forth by EPA in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, where a complete year of air quality data comprises four calendar quarters, with each quarter containing data with at least 75% capture of the scheduled sampling days. Available data are considered to be sufficient for comparison to the NAAQS if three consecutive complete years of data exist. E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 48090 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1—THE 1997 ANNUAL AND 2006 24-HOUR PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES FOR THE CANTON-MASSILLON MONITORS (IN μg/m3) County Annual standard 2009–2011 Site Stark, OH1 .................................................................. Stark, OH ................................................................... 24-Hour standard 2009–2011 Annual standard 2010–2012 24-Hour standard 2010–2012 13.4 11.9 30 28 13.0 11.8 29 26 391510017 391510020 1 Design values for the site 391510017 were incomplete for 2009–2011 due to one quarter in 2009, substitution analysis for 2009–2011 showed attainment for the annual standard. 2010–2012 data was complete for both standards. EPA’s review of these monitoring data supports EPA’s determination that the Canton-Massillon area has monitored attainment for the most recent three years of data. Therefore, EPA proposes to determine that the Canton-Massillon area is attaining the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards. pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) (Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)) We believe that Ohio has met all currently applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Canton-Massillon area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We are also proposing to find that the Ohio SIP meets all SIP requirements currently applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D of title I of the CAA, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). We are proposing to find that all applicable requirements of the Ohio SIP for purposes of redesignation have been met, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As discussed below, in this action EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s 2005 and 2008 emissions inventory, as well as the supplemental submission to the emissions inventory of 2007 VOC and ammonia data made on April 30, 2013, as meeting the section 172(c)(3) comprehensive emissions inventory requirement. In making these proposed determinations, we have ascertained which SIP requirements are applicable for purposes of redesignation, and concluded that SIP measures meeting those requirements are approved or will be approved by the time of final rulemaking. a. Ohio Has Met All Applicable Requirements for Purposes of Redesignation of the Canton-Massillon Area Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA i. Section 110 General SIP Requirements Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the general requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:22 Aug 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 implementation plan submitted by a state must have been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing, and, among other things, must: include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA; provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary to monitor ambient air quality; provide for implementation of a source permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; include provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part D, New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; include criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring and reporting; include provisions for air quality modeling; and provide for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development. Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area’s designation are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, we believe that these requirements should not be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. Further, we believe that the other section 110 elements described above that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area’s attainment status are also not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements that are linked with PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 a particular area’s designation are the relevant measures which we may consider in evaluating a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA’s existing policy on applicability of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176, October 10, 1996) and (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001). We have reviewed the Ohio SIP and have concluded that it meets the general SIP requirements under section 110 of the CAA to the extent they are applicable for purposes of this redesignation. EPA has previously approved provisions of Ohio’s SIP addressing section 110 requirements, including provisions addressing particulate matter, at 40 CFR 52.1870, respectively). On December 5, 2007, and September 4, 2009, Ohio made submittals addressing ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ elements required under CAA section 110(a)(2). EPA proposed approval of the December 5, 2007, submittal on April 28, 2011, at 76 FR 23757, and published final approval on July 14, 2011, at 76 FR 41075. The requirements of section 110(a)(2), however, are statewide requirements that are not linked to the PM2.5 nonattainment status of the CantonMassillon area. Therefore, EPA believes that these SIP elements are not applicable requirements for purposes of review of the state’s PM2.5 redesignation request. ii. Part D Requirements EPA is proposing to determine that, upon approval of the base year E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules emissions inventories discussed in section V.6. of this rulemaking, the Ohio SIP will meet the SIP requirements for the Canton-Massillon area applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D of the CAA. Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172–176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. (1). Subpart 1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 (a). Section 172 Requirements. For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the applicable section 172 SIP requirements for the Canton-Massillon area are contained in section 172(c)(1)–(9). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all nonattainment areas to provide for the implementation of all Reasonably Achievable Control Measures (RACM) as expeditiously as practicable and to provide for attainment of the primary NAAQS. EPA interprets this requirement to impose a duty on all nonattainment areas to consider all available control measures and to adopt and implement such measures as are reasonably available for implementation in each area as components of the area’s attainment demonstration. Because attainment has been reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment, and section 172(c)(1) requirements are no longer considered to be applicable as long as the area continues to attain the standard until redesignation. (40 CFR 51.1004(c).) The Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirement under section 172(c)(2) is defined as progress that must be made toward attainment. This requirement is not relevant for purposes of redesignation because the CantonMassillon area has monitored attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. (General Preamble, 57 FR 13564). See also 40 CFR 51.918. In addition, because the Canton-Massillon area has attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and is no longer subject to an RFP requirement, the requirement to submit the section 172(c)(9) contingency measures is not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Id. Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. Ohio submitted a 2005 (nonattainment year) and 2008 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 (attainment year) emissions inventories for SO2, NOX, and directly emitted PM2.5 as part of their redesignation request, and Ohio supplemented these inventories with emission inventories for VOC and ammonia on April 29, 2013. As discussed below in section V.6, EPA is approving both the 2005 and 2008 base year inventory as meeting the section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirement for the Canton-Massillon area. Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA approved Ohio’s current NSR program on January 10, 2003 (68 FR 1366). Nonetheless, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, the area need not have a fully-approved NSR program for purposes of this redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ’’Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.’’ Ohio has demonstrated that the Canton-Massillon area will be able to maintain the standard without part D NSR in effect; therefore, the state need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request. The state’s PSD program will become effective in the Canton-Massillon area upon redesignation to attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 1996). Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures necessary to provide for attainment of the standard. Because attainment has been reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment. Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we believe the Ohio’s SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for purposes of redesignation. (b) Section 176(c)(4)(D) Conformity SIP Requirements. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 48091 The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under title 23 of the U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity), as well as to all other Federally-supported or funded projects (general conformity). Section 176(c) of the CAA was amended by provisions contained in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), which was signed into law on August 10, 2005 (Pub. L. 109–59). Among the changes Congress made to this section of the CAA were streamlined requirements for state transportation conformity SIPs. State transportation conformity regulations must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations and address three specific requirements related to consultation, enforcement and enforceability. EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the transportation conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) for two reasons. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the transportation conformity provisions of the CAA continues to apply to areas after redesignation to attainment since such areas would be subject to a section 175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA’s Federal conformity rules require the performance of conformity analyses in the absence of Federally-approved state rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to the transportation conformity requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment and, because they must implement conformity under Federal rules if state rules are not yet approved, EPA believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 62749–62750 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida). Ohio has an approved transportation conformity SIP (72 FR 20945). Ohio is in the process of updating its approved transportation conformity SIP, and EPA will review its provisions when they are submitted. (2). Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding PM2.5 Implementation under Subpart 4 (a). Background As discussed above, on January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 48092 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 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. Although the Court’s ruling did not directly address the 2006 PM2.5 standard, EPA is taking into account the Court’s position on subpart 4 and the 1997 PM2.5 standard in evaluating redesignations for the 2006 standard. pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 (b). Proposal on This Issue EPA is proposing to determine that the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision does not prevent EPA from redesignating the Canton-Massillon area to attainment. Even in light of the Court’s decision, redesignation for this area is appropriate under the CAA and EPA’s longstanding interpretations of the CAA’s provisions regarding redesignation. EPA first explains its longstanding interpretation that requirements that are imposed, or that become due, after a complete redesignation request is submitted for an area that is attaining the standard are not applicable for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. Second, EPA then shows that, even if EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements to the Canton-Massillon redesignation request and disregards the provisions of its 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule recently remanded by the Court, the state’s request for redesignation of this area still qualifies for approval. EPA’s discussion takes into account the effect of the Court’s ruling on the area’s maintenance plan, which EPA views as approvable when subpart 4 requirements are considered. (i). 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 redesignation request for the area, to the extent that implementation under subpart 4 would impose additional requirements for areas designated nonattainment, EPA believes that those requirements are not ‘‘applicable’’ for the purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not required to consider subpart 4 requirements with respect to the Canton-Massillon 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) 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 Canton-Massillon redesignation, the subpart 4 requirements were not due at the time the state submitted the redesignation request is in keeping with the EPA’s interpretation of subpart 2 requirements for subpart 1 ozone areas redesignated 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. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 8hour 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 18month timeframe provided by the CAA for this purpose. E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules Second, a fundamental premise for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment is that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS due to emission reductions from existing controls. Thus, an area for which a redesignation request has been submitted would have already attained the NAAQS as a result of satisfying statutory requirements that came due prior to the submission of the request. Absent a showing that unadopted and unimplemented requirements are necessary for future maintenance, it is reasonable to view the requirements applicable for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request as including only those SIP requirements that have already come due. These are the requirements that led to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, for redesignation approval, that a state also satisfy additional SIP requirements coming due after the state submits its complete redesignation request, and while EPA is reviewing it, would compel the state to do more than is necessary to attain the NAAQS, without a showing that the additional requirements are necessary for maintenance. In the context of this redesignation, the timing and nature of the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. EPA compound the consequences of imposing requirements that come due after the redesignation request is submitted. The state submitted its redesignation request on July 5, 2011, but the Court did not issue its decision remanding EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule concerning the applicability of the provisions of subpart 4 until January 2013. To require the state’s fully-completed and pending redesignation request to comply now with requirements of subpart 4 that the Court announced only in January, 2013, would be to give retroactive effect to such requirements when the state had no notice that it was required to meet them. The D.C. Circuit recognized the inequity of this type of retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),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 2 Sierra 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). VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 determination effective as of the date that the statute required, rather than the later date on which EPA actually made the determination. The Court rejected this view, stating that applying it ‘‘would likely impose large costs on states, which would face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans . . . even though they were not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable to penalize the state of 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. (ii). Subpart 4 Requirements and Ohio 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 Canton-Massillon area still qualifies for redesignation to attainment. As explained below, EPA believes that the redesignation request for the CantonMassillon 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 Canton-Massillon 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 PM103 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 3 PM refers to particulates nominally 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller. PO 00000 10 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 48093 of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (the ‘‘General Preamble’’). In the General Preamble, EPA discussed the relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and pointed out that subpart 1 requirements were to an extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally related to, the more specific PM–10 requirements.’’ 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 1992). The subpart 1 requirements include, among other things, provisions for attainment demonstrations, RACM, 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 Canton-Massillon 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 PSD program after redesignation. A detailed rationale for this view is 4 The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this redesignation is discussed below. E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 48094 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 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 4,5 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 attainmentlinked requirements as not applicable for areas attaining the standard. In the General Preamble, EPA stated that: The requirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request for redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality data for the area must show that the area has already attained. Showing that the state will make RFP towards attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that point. ‘‘General Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990’’; (57 FR 13498, 13564, April 16, 1992). The General Preamble also explained that pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 [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 6 and thus are now past 5 I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, milestone requirements, contingency measures. 6 As EPA has explained above, we do not believe that the Court’s January 4, 2013 decision should be VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 due, those requirements do not apply to an area that is attaining the 1997 and 2006 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. Elsewhere in this notice, EPA proposes to determine that the area has attained the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards. Under its longstanding interpretation, EPA is proposing to determine here that the area meets the attainment-related plan requirements of subparts 1 and 4. Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude that the requirements to submit an attainment demonstration under 189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination under section 172(c)1 and section 189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration under 189(c)(1), and contingency measure requirements under section 172(c)(9) are satisfied for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request. interpreted so as to impose these requirements on the states retroactively. Sierra Club v. Whitman, supra. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 (iii). Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5 Precursors The D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA remanded to EPA the two rules at issue in the case with instructions to EPA to re-promulgate them consistent with the requirements of subpart 4. EPA in this section addresses the Court’s opinion with respect to PM2.5 precursors. While past implementation of subpart 4 for PM10 has allowed for control of PM10 precursors such as NOX from major stationary, mobile, and area sources in order to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, CAA section 189(e) specifically provides that control requirements for major stationary sources of direct PM10 shall also apply to PM10 precursors from those sources, except where EPA determines that major stationary sources of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the standard in the area.’’ EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule, remanded by the 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)]. E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules Id. at 21, n.7. For a number of reasons, EPA believes that its proposed redesignation of the Canton-Massillon area is consistent with the Court’s decision on this aspect of subpart 4. First, while the Court, citing section 189(e), stated that ‘‘for a PM10 area governed by subpart 4, a precursor is ‘presumptively regulated,’’’ the Court expressly declined to decide the specific challenge to EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule provisions regarding ammonia and VOC as precursors. The Court had no occasion to reach whether and how it was substantively necessary to regulate any specific precursor in a particular PM2.5 nonattainment area, and did not address what might be necessary for purposes of acting upon a redesignation request. However, even if EPA takes the view that the requirements of subpart 4 were deemed applicable at the time the state submitted the redesignation request, and disregards the implementation rule’s rebuttable presumptions regarding ammonia and VOC as PM2.5 precursors, (and any similar provisions reflected in the guidance for the 2006 PM2.5 standard) 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 Canton-Massillon, EPA believes that doing so is consistent with proposing redesignation of the area for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. The Canton-Massillon area has attained both standards 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.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 ammonia and VOC. Thus we must address here whether additional controls of ammonia and VOC from major stationary sources are required under section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to redesignate the area for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. As explained below, we do not believe that any 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 additional controls of ammonia and VOC are required in the context of this redesignation. In the General Preamble, EPA discusses its approach to implementing section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538–13542. With regard to precursor regulation under section 189(e), the General Preamble explicitly stated that control of VOCs under other Act requirements may suffice to relieve a state from the need to adopt precursor controls under section 189(e) (57 FR 13542). EPA in this proposal proposes to determine that the SIP has met the provisions of section 189(e) with respect to ammonia and VOCs as precursors. This proposed determination is based on our findings that (1) the Canton-Massillon 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.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 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 Canton-Massillon area. See 57 FR 13539–42. EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule provisions in 40 CFR 51.1002 were not directed at evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the context of redesignation, but at SIP plans and control measures required to bring a nonattainment area into attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. By contrast, redesignation to attainment primarily requires the area to have 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. 8 The Canton-Massillon area has reduced VOC emissions through the implementation of various SIP approved VOC control programs and various on-road and nonroad motor vehicle control programs. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 48095 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 CantonMassillon area has already attained the 1997 and 2006 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 Canton-Massillon area. In the context of a redesignation, the area has shown that it has attained both standards. Moreover, the state has shown and EPA is proposing 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 Canton-Massillon area to attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. In sum, even if Ohio were required to address precursors for the CantonMassillon 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 9 See, 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). 10 See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005). E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 48096 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v). pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 b. The Canton-Massillon Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA Upon final approval of Ohio’s comprehensive emissions inventories, EPA will have fully approved the Ohio SIP for the Canton-Massillon area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (See page 3 of the Calcagni Memorandum; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–990 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001)), plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since the passage of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved, provisions addressing various required SIP elements under particulate matter standards. In this action, as discussed in section V.6 EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s base year emissions inventories for the CantonMassillon area as meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 1997 annual and 2006 24hour PM2.5 standard. c. Nonattainment Requirements Under section 172, states with nonattainment areas must submit plans providing for timely attainment and meeting a variety of other requirements. On July 16, 2008, Ohio submitted a state-wide attainment demonstration for PM2.5, including the Canton-Massillon area. However, EPA’s determination that the area attained the 1997 PM2.5 annual and 2006 24-hour standards (76 FR 56641; 77 FR 28264, respectively) suspended the requirement to submit certain planning SIPs related to attainment, including attainment demonstration requirements, the Reasonably Achievable Control Technology (RACT)-RACM requirement of section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, the RFP and attainment demonstration requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and (6) and 182(b)(1) of the CAA and the requirement for contingency measures of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA). As a result, the only remaining requirement under section 172 to be considered is the emissions inventory required under section 172(c)(3). As discussed in section V.6, EPA is proposing to approve the inventory that Ohio submitted as part of its VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 maintenance plan as satisfying this requirement. No SIP provisions applicable for redesignation of the Canton-Massillon area are currently disapproved, conditionally approved or partially approved. If EPA approves Ohio’s Canton-Massillon area PM2.5 emissions inventories as proposed, Ohio will have a fully approved SIP for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. (light duty vehicles)—77%; light duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility vehicles—86%; and, larger sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks—69% to 95%. EPA expects fleet wide average emissions to come to decline by similar percentages as new vehicles replace older vehicles. The Tier 2 standards also reduced the sulfur content of gasoline to 30 parts per million (ppm) beginning in January 2006. Most gasoline sold in Ohio prior to January 2006 had a sulfur content of about 500 ppm. 3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. EPA Due to Permanent and Enforceable issued this rule in July 2000. This rule Reductions in Emissions Resulting From includes standards limiting the sulfur Implementation of the SIP and content of diesel fuel, which went into Applicable Federal Air Pollution effect in 2004. A second phase took Control Regulations and Other effect in 2007 which reduced fine Permanent and Enforceable Reductions particle emissions from heavy-duty (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)) highway engines and further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to EPA believes that Ohio has 15 ppm. The total program is estimated demonstrated that the observed air to achieve a 90% reduction in direct quality improvement in the CantonPM2.5 emissions and a 95% reduction in Massillon area is due to permanent and NOX emissions for these new engines enforceable reductions in emissions using low sulfur diesel, compared to resulting from implementation of the existing engines using higher sulfur SIP, Federal measures and other statecontent diesel. The reduction in fuel adopted measures. sulfur content also yielded an In making this demonstration, Ohio immediate reduction in sulfate particle has calculated the change in emissions emissions from all diesel vehicles. between 2005, one of the years used to Nonroad Diesel Rule. In May 2004, designate the Canton-Massillon area as EPA promulgated a new rule for large nonattainment, and 2008, one of the nonroad diesel engines, such as those years the Canton-Massillon area monitored attainment. The reduction in used construction, agriculture and mining equipment, to be phased in emissions and the corresponding between 2008 and 2014. The rule also improvement in air quality over this reduces the sulfur content in nonroad time period can be attributed to a diesel fuel by over 99%. Prior to 2006, number of regulatory control measures nonroad diesel fuel averaged that the Canton-Massillon area and contributing areas have implemented in approximately 3,400 ppm sulfur. This rule limited nonroad diesel sulfur recent years. content to 500 ppm by 2006, with a a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls further reduction to 15 ppm by 2010. Implemented The combined engine and fuel rules will reduce NOX and PM emissions from The following is a discussion of large nonroad diesel engines by over permanent and enforceable measures that have been implemented in the area: 90%, compared to current nonroad engines using higher sulfur content i. Federal Emission Control Measures diesel. It is estimated that compliance Reductions in fine particle precursor with this rule will cut NOX emissions emissions have occurred statewide and from nonroad diesel engines by up to in upwind areas as a result of Federal 90%. This rule achieved some emission emission control measures, with reductions by 2008 and was fully additional emission reductions expected implemented by 2010. The reduction in to occur in the future. Federal emission fuel sulfur content also yielded an control measures include the following: immediate reduction in sulfate particle Tier 2 Emission Standards for emissions from all diesel vehicles. Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards. Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engine These emission control requirements and Recreational Engine Standards. In result in lower NOX and SO2 emissions November 2002 EPA promulgated emission standards for groups of from new cars and light duty trucks, previously unregulated nonroad including sport utility vehicles. The engines. These engines include large Federal rules were phased in between spark-ignition engines such as those 2004 and 2009. The EPA has estimated used in forklifts and airport groundthat, by the end of the phase-in period, service equipment; recreational vehicles new vehicles will emit the following using spark-ignition engines such as offpercentages less NOX: Passenger cars PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles; and recreational marine diesel engines. Emission standards from large sparkignition engines were implemented in two tiers, with Tier 1 starting in 2004 and Tier 2 in 2007. Recreational vehicle emission standards are being phased in from 2006 through 2012. Marine Diesel engine standards were phased in from 2006 through 2009. With full implementation of the nonroad sparkignition engine and recreational engine standards, an 80% reduction in NOX expected by 2020. Some of these emission reductions occurred by the 2008–2010 period used to demonstrate attainment, and additional emission reductions will occur during the maintenance period. ii. Control Measures in Contributing Areas NOX SIP Call. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX. Affected states were required to comply with Phase I of the SIP Call beginning in 2004, and with Phase II beginning in 2007. Emission reductions resulting from regulations developed in response to the NOX SIP Call are permanent and enforceable. CAIR. The Canton-Massillon area has demonstrated that attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be maintained with or without the implementation of CAIR or CSAPR. The Canton-Massillon area has no local electric generating units (EGUs) that would be impacted by CAIR or CSAPR, and in fact, the area’s emissions are dominated by mobile sources (Table 2). Mobile sources in the area comprise 85% of the NOX emissions, 38% of the SO2 emission, and 46% of the PM2.5 emissions from the base-year inventory. In addition, regional emissions will not affect the attainment or maintenance of the Canton-Massillon area. Modeling conducted by EPA during the CSAPR rulemaking process demonstrates that the counties in the Canton-Massillon PM2.5 nonattainment area will have concentrations below the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards in both 2012 and 2014 without taking into account emissions reductions from CAIR or CSAPR. See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document’’, App. B. This modeling is available in the docket for this proposed redesignation action. Moreover, in its August 2012 decision, the Court also ordered EPA to continue implementing CAIR. See EME Homer City Generation LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In sum, neither the current status of CAIR nor the current status of CSAPR affects any of the criteria for proposed approval of this redesignation request for the CantonMassillon area. iii. Consent Decrees On December 31, 2012, the Marathon petroleum refinery in Canton was required by a Federal consent decree to shut down an open waste gas flare, resulting in reductions of VOCs, SO2 and direct PM. The Canton refinery is also required under this consent decree to meet specific limits on their capped gas flare that must be incorporated into the permanent construction permit. These emission reductions will add to continued reductions for other sources in the area throughout the maintenance period. In a 2011 state consent decree, Akron Iron & Metal, LLC, in Canton, added baghouse controls resulting in reductions of direct PM in the Canton area. 48097 b. Emission Reductions Ohio developed emissions inventories for NOX, direct PM2.5 and SO2 for 2005, one of the years used to designate the area as nonattainment, and 2008, one of the years the Canton-Massillon area monitored attainment of the standard. Area source emissions the CantonMassillon area for 2005 were taken from periodic emissions inventories.11 These 2005 area source emission estimates were extrapolated to 2008. Source growth factors were supplied by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO). Nonroad mobile source emissions were extrapolated from nonroad mobile source emissions reported in EPA’s 2005 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). Contractors were employed by LADCO to estimate emissions for commercial marine vessels and railroads. On-road mobile source emissions were calculated using EPA’s mobile source emission factor model, MOVES2010a, in conjunction with transportation model results developed by the Stark County Area Transportation Study (SCATS). All emissions estimates discussed below were documented in the submittal and appendices of Ohio’s redesignation request submittal from April 16, 2012, and their April 30, 2013, supplemental submittal. For these data and additional emissions inventory data, the reader is referred to EPA’s digital docket for this rule, https:// www.regulations.gov, which includes digital copies of Ohio’s submittal. Emissions data in tpy for the CantonMassillon area are shown in Tables 2 and 3, below. TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF 2005 EMISSIONS OF SO2, NOX, AND DIRECTLY EMITTED PM2.5 FOR THE CANTON-MASSILLON AREA BY SOURCE TYPE [tpy] pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 SO2 NOX PM2.5 Point (EGU) ................................................................................................................................. Non-EGU ..................................................................................................................................... On-road ........................................................................................................................................ Nonroad ....................................................................................................................................... Area ............................................................................................................................................. MAR ............................................................................................................................................. 0.00 553.14 191.33 261.01 163.72 38.35 0.00 1,129.41 14,004.65 2,801.96 1,313.88 537.27 0.00 380.10 433.47 231.64 370.87 14.58 Total Canton-Massillon ......................................................................................................... 1,207.55 19,787.17 1,430.66 11 Periodic emission inventories are derived by states every three years and reported to the EPA. These periodic emission inventories are required by VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 the Federal Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule, codified at 40 CFR Subpart A. EPA revised these and other emission reporting requirements in a final PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 rule published on December 17, 2008, at 73 FR 76539. E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 48098 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF PM2.5, NOX, AND SO2 EMISSIONS FROM A NONATTAINMENT YEAR (2005) AND EMISSIONS FOR AN ATTAINMENT YEAR (2008) FOR THE CANTON-MASSILLON AREA [tpy] 2005 PM2.5 ............................................................................................................................................ NOX .............................................................................................................................................. SO2 .............................................................................................................................................. Table 3 shows that the CantonMassillon area shows a decrease in direct PM2.5 emissions by 173.55 tons, the area reduced NOX emissions by 3,559.91tons and SO2 emissions by 300.76 tons between 2005, a nonattainment year, and 2008, an attainment year. Ohio did not attribute attainment to any changes in VOC or ammonia emissions; instead to changes in SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 emissions. EPA agrees that emission reductions from sources of SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 brought the area into attainment, with most emission reductions occurring from Federal mobile source engine standards and fuel standards (Table 2 and 3). Based on the information summarized above, Ohio has adequately demonstrated that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. 4. Ohio Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)) In conjunction with Ohio’s request to redesignate the Canton-Massillon nonattainment area to attainment status, Ohio has submitted a SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the area through 2025. a. What is required in a maintenance plan? Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after EPA approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for ten years following the initial ten year maintenance period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future annual PM2.5 violations. The Calcagni Memorandum provides additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum states that a maintenance plan should address the following items: the attainment emissions inventories, a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for the ten years of the maintenance period, a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network, factors and procedures to be used for verification of continued attainment of the NAAQS and a contingency plan to prevent or correct future violations of the NAAQS. b. Attainment Inventory Ohio developed emissions inventories for NOX, direct PM2.5 and SO2 for 2008, one of the years in the period during which the Canton-Massillon area monitored attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, as described previously. The attainment levels of emissions for the area are summarized in Tables 3, above. c. Demonstration of Maintenance Along with the redesignation request, Ohio submitted a revision to its PM2.5 2008 1,430.66 19,787.17 1,207.55 1,257.11 16,227.26 906.79 Net change (2005–2008) ¥173.55 ¥3,559.91 ¥300.76 SIP to include a maintenance plan for the Canton-Massillon area, as required by section 175A of the CAA. Section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the area ‘‘for at least 10 years after the redesignation.’’ EPA has interpreted this as a showing of maintenance ‘‘for a period of ten years following redesignation.’’ Calcagni Memorandum, p.9. Where the emissions inventory method of showing maintenance is used, its purpose is to show that emissions during the maintenance period will not increase over the attainment year inventory. Calcagni Memorandum, pp. 9–10. Ohio’s submission uses emissions inventory projections for the years 2015 and 2025 to demonstrate maintenance for the Canton-Massillon area. The projected emissions were estimated by Ohio, with assistance from LADCO and SCATS using the MOVES2010a model. The 2015 interim year emissions were projected using estimates based on the 2009 and 2018 LADCO modeling inventory, using LADCO’s growth factors, for all sectors. The 2025 maintenance year inventory is based on emissions estimates from the 2018 LADCO modeling. Table 4 shows the 2008 attainment base year emission estimates and the 2015 and 2025 emission projections for NOX, direct PM2.5 and SO2 for the Canton-Massillon area that Ohio provided in its April 16, 2012 submission. pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015 AND 2025 NOX, DIRECT PM2.5 AND SO2 EMISSION TOTALS (TPY) FOR THE CANTON-MASSILLON AREA SO2 2008 (baseline) ............................................................................................................................ 2015 ............................................................................................................................................. 2025 ............................................................................................................................................. Change 2008–2025 ..................................................................................................................... VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 NOX 906.79 812.89 795.30 ¥111.49 12% decrease E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 16,227.26 11,001.32 7,822.67 ¥8,404.59 52% decrease PM2.5 1,257.11 1,088.72 912.92 ¥344.19 27% decrease Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules Table 4 shows that the CantonMassillon area reduced NOX emissions by 8,404.59 tpy between 2008 and the maintenance projection to 2025, direct PM2.5 emissions by 344.19 tpy, and reduced SO2 emissions by 111.49 tpy between 2008 and 2025. EPA in this proposal is also considering the effect of the Court’s remand of EPA’s implementation rule, in particular the remand of presumptions against consideration of VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, on requirements for the maintenance plan mandated under sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To begin with, EPA notes that the area has attained the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standard and that the state has shown that attainment of those standards is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. EPA proposes to determine that the state’s maintenance plan shows continued maintenance of the standard by tracking the levels of the precursors whose control brought about attainment of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standard in the Canton-Massillon area. EPA therefore believes that the only additional consideration related to the maintenance plan requirements that results from the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision is that of assessing the potential role of VOC and ammonia in demonstrating continued maintenance in this area. As explained below, based upon documentation provided by the state and supporting information, EPA believes that the maintenance plan for the Canton-Massillon 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 CantonMassillon area are low, estimated to be less than 1,700 tpy. See Table 5 below. This amount of ammonia emissions appears especially small in comparison to the total amounts of NOX, and VOCs from sources in the area. Both VOC and NOX are also well controlled in the Canton-Massillon area and have decreased due to permanent and enforceable measures such as RACT rules controlling stationary sources previously approved (75 FR 65572; OAC 3745–17; OAC 3745–110). Additional significant reductions resulted from Federal mobile source standards discussed above, accounting for 3,536 tpy of the NOX reductions in the area and 665 tpy of PM2.5 reductions between 48099 2005 and 2008. Future compliance with mobile source standards is also projected to reduce NOX by approximately 700 tpy and PM2.5 by approximately 200 tpy between 2008 and 2025. Ohio’s maintenance plan shows a projected reduction of NOX emissions by 8,404.59 tpy between 2008 and the maintenance projection to 2025, direct PM2.5 emissions of 344.19 tpy, and reduced SO2 emissions of 111.49 tpy between 2008 and 2025. See Table 4 above. In addition, emissions inventories used in EPA’s regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS show that VOC emissions are projected to decrease by 720 tpy, respectively between 2007 and 2020. Ammonia emissions are projected to increase slightly between 2007 and 2020 by 8 tpy, which is expected to have minimal air quality impact, an impact that will be more than compensated by the significant emissions reductions projected in direct PM2.5, SO2, and NOX. See Table 5. Given that all emissions except ammonia decrease significantly below attainment year levels, providing a large margin of safety, the minimal increase in ammonia would not be expected to impact the areas ability to attain either the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2020 VOC AND AMMONIA EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE CANTON-MASSILLON AREA 1 Ammonia VOCs Net change 2007–2020 2007 2020 Point ................................................................................. Area .................................................................................. Nonroad ........................................................................... On-road ............................................................................ Fires ................................................................................. 21.29 1491.50 2.66 148.98 1.69 20.40 1564.69 3.04 84.33 1.69 Total .......................................................................... 1666.11 1674.16 Net change 2007–2020 2007 2020 ¥0.89 73.20 0.38 ¥64.65 0.00 919.30 4825.67 2723.36 5199.46 24.28 901.40 4846.99 1612.89 1847.15 24.28 ¥17.90 21.32 ¥1110.47 ¥3352.30 0.00 8.04 13692.06 9232.71 ¥4459.35 1 These pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 emissions estimates were taken from the emissions inventories developed for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS which can be found in the docket. The current air quality design values for the area are 13.0 and 29 mg/m3 (based on 2010–2012 air quality data), which are well below the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 and 35 mg/m3. In addition, available air quality modeling analyses show continued maintenance of the standard during the maintenance period. The modeling analysis conducted for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS indicates that the design value for this area is expected to continue to decline through 2020. In the RIA analysis, the highest 2020 modeled design value for VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 the Canton-Massillon area is 10.8 mg/m3. Given that NOX, SO2, PM2.5, and VOC emissions are projected to decrease through 2025, and given that ammonia emissions are expected to remain relatively constant, it is reasonable to conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels in this area will continue to decrease through 2025. Thus, EPA believes that there is ample justification to conclude that the Canton-Massillon area will continue to maintain the standard, even taking into consideration the emissions of other precursors potentially relevant to PM2.5. PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 After consideration of the DC Circuit’s January 4, 2013, decision, and for the reasons set forth in this notice, EPA proposes to approve the state’s maintenance plan and its request to redesignate the Canton-Massillon area to attainment for the PM2.5 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour NAAQS. As described in section V.3.b of this action, the result of Federal rules and consent decree actions, demonstrate that the reductions in emissions from point, area, and mobile sources in the CantonMassillon area have occurred and are mandated to continue to occur through E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 48100 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 2025 and beyond. Thus the emissions inventories set forth in Table 4 show that the area will continue to maintain the annual PM2.5 standard during the maintenance period at least through 2025. Based on the information summarized above, Ohio has adequately demonstrated maintenance of the PM2.5 standard in this area for a period extending in excess of ten years from expected final action on Ohio’s redesignation request. d. Monitoring Network Ohio’s plan includes a commitment to continue working with West Virginia to operate its EPA-approved monitoring network, as necessary to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. Ohio currently operates three PM2.5 monitors in the Canton-Massillon area. West Virginia currently operates three monitors in their portion of the CantonMassillon area. pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 e. Verification of Continued Attainment Ohio remains obligated to continue to quality-assure monitoring data and enter all data into AQS in accordance with Federal guidelines. Ohio will use these data, supplemented with additional information as necessary, to assure that the area continues to attain the standard. Ohio will also continue to develop and submit periodic emission inventories as required by the Federal Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002) to track future levels of emissions. Both of these actions will help to verify continued attainment in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. f. Contingency Plan The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures, and a time limit for action by VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 the state. The state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant(s) that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA. Ohio’s contingency measures include a Warning Level Response and an Action Level Response. An initial Warning Level Response is triggered when the average weighted annual mean for one year exceeds 15.5 mg/m3. A warning level response for the 2006 24-hour standard shall be prompted whenever the 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentration of 35.5 mg/m3 occurs in a single calendar year within the maintenance area. In that case, a study will be conducted to determine if the emissions trends show increases; if action is necessary to reverse emissions increases, Ohio will follow the same procedures for control selection and implementation as for an Action Level Response. The Action Level Response will be prompted by any one of the following: a Warning Level Response study that shows emissions increases, a weighted annual mean for the 1997 annual standard, or a 98th percentile for the 24hour standard, over a two-year period that exceeds the standard or a violation of the standard. If an Action Level Response is triggered, Ohio will adopt and implement appropriate control measures within 12 months from the end of the year in which monitored air quality triggering a response occurs. Ohio’s candidate contingency measures include the following: i. Diesel emission reduction strategies; ii. Alternative fuels; iii. Statewide NOX RACT rules; iv. Impact crushers at recycle scrap yards using wet suppression; v. Tighter emission offsets for new and modified major sources; vi. ICI Boilers—SO2 and NOX controls; vii. Emission controls for: a. Process heaters; b. EGUS; c. Internal combustion engines; d. Combustion turbines; e. Other sources > 100 TPY; PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 f. Fleet vehicles; g. Concrete manufacturers and; h. Aggregate processing plants. Ohio further commits to conduct ongoing review of its data, and if monitored concentrations or emissions are trending upward, Ohio commits to take appropriate steps to avoid a violation if possible. Ohio commits to continue implementing SIP requirements upon and after redesignation. EPA believes that Ohio’s contingency measures, as well as the commitment to continue implementing any SIP requirements, satisfy the pertinent requirements of section 175A(d). As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Ohio commits to submit to the EPA an updated PM2.5 maintenance plan eight years after redesignation of the Canton-Massillon area to cover an additional ten year period beyond the initial ten year maintenance period. As required by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio has also committed to retain the PM2.5 control measures contained in the SIP prior to redesignation. For all of the reasons set forth above, EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance plan for the CantonMassillon area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A. 5. Adequacy of Ohio’s MVEB a. How are MVEBs developed and what are the MVEBs for the Canton-Massillon area? Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for PM2.5 nonattainment areas and for areas seeking redesignations to attainment of the PM2.5 standard. These emission control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP and attainment demonstration SIP revisions) and maintenance plans create MVEBs based on on-road mobile source emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from on-road transportation sources. The MVEBs are the portions of the total allowable emissions that are allocated to highway and transit vehicle use that, together with emissions from other sources in the area, will provide for attainment, RFP or maintenance, as applicable. E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an area seeking a redesignation to attainment is established for the last year of the maintenance plan and could also be established for an interim year or years. The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area’s planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans and transportation improvement programs (TIPs) must be evaluated to determine if they conform to the purpose of the area’s SIP. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or any required interim milestone. If a transportation plan or TIP does not conform, most new transportation projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. When reviewing SIP revisions containing MVEBs, including attainment strategies, rate-of-progress plans, and maintenance plans, EPA must affirmatively find adequate and/or approve the MVEBs for use in determining transportation conformity before the MVEBs can be used. Once EPA affirmatively approves and/or finds the submitted MVEBs to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes, the MVEBs must be used by state and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation plans and TIPs conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA’s substantive criteria for determining the adequacy of MVEBs are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Additionally, to approve a motor vehicle emissions budget EPA must complete a thorough review of the SIP, in this case the PM2.5 maintenance plans, and conclude that the SIP will achieve its overall purpose, in this case providing for maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard the Canton-Massillon area. EPA’s process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of three basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2) providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a public comment period; and, (3) EPA taking action on the MVEB. The process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs is codified at 40 CFR 93.118. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 48101 The maintenance plan submitted by Ohio for the Canton-Massillon area contains new primary PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the area for the years 2015 and 2025. The motor vehicle emissions budgets were calculated using MOVES2010(a). After the adequacy finding and approval of the budgets become effective, the budgets will have to be used in future conformity determinations and regional emissions analyses prepared by the SCATS, will have to be based on the use of MOVES2010a or the most recent version of MOVES required to be used in transportation conformity determinations.12 The state has determined the 2015 MVEBs for the Canton-Massillon area to be 204.33 tpy for primary PM2.5 and 7,782.84 tpy for NOX. Ohio has determined the 2025 MVEBs for the Canton-Massillon area to be 101.50 tpy for primary PM2.5 and 4,673.83 tpy for NOX. These MVEBs exceed the on-road mobile source primary PM2.5 and NOX emissions projected by the states for 2015 and 2025. Ohio has decided to include ‘‘safety margins’’ as provided for in 40 CFR 93.124(a) (described below) of 26.65 tpy and 13.24 tpy for primary PM2.5 and 1,015.15 tpy and 609.63 tpy for NOX in the 2015 and 2025 MVEBs, respectively, to provide for on-road mobile source growth. Ohio did not provide emission budgets for SO2, VOCs, and ammonia because it concluded, that emissions of these precursors from on-road motor vehicles are not significant contributors to the area’s PM2.5 air quality problem. EPA issued conformity regulations to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in July 2004 and May 2005 (69 FR 40004, July 1, 2004 and 70 FR 24280, May 6, 2005, respectively). Those actions were not part of the final rule recently remanded to EPA by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in NRDC v. EPA, No. 08–1250 (Jan. 4, 2013), in which the Court remanded to EPA the implementation rule for the PM2.5 NAAQS because it concluded that EPA must implement that NAAQS pursuant to the PM-specific implementation provisions of subpart 4 of part D of title I of the CAA, rather than solely under the general provisions of subpart 1. That decision does not affect EPA’s proposed approval of the Canton-Massillon area MVEBs. In the Canton-Massillon area, the motor vehicle budgets including the safety margins and motor vehicle emission projections for both NOX and PM2.5 are lower than the levels in the attainment year. EPA has reviewed the submitted budgets for 2015 and 2025 including the added safety margins using the conformity rule’s adequacy criteria found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and the conformity rule’s requirements for safety margins found at 40 CFR 93.124(a). EPA has also completed a thorough review of the maintenance plan for the Canton-Massillon area. Based on the results of this review of the budgets and the maintenance plans, EPA is approving the 2015 and 2025 direct PM2.5 and NOX budgets including the requested safety margins for the Canton-Massillon area. Additionally, EPA, through this rulemaking, has found the submitted budgets to be adequate for use to determine transportation conformity in the CantonMassillon area, because EPA has determined that the area can maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the relevant maintenance period with onroad mobile source emissions at the levels of the MVEBs including the requested safety margins. These budgets must be used in conformity determinations made on or after the effective date of this direct final rulemaking (40 CFR 93.118(f)(iii)). Additionally, transportation conformity determinations made after the effective date of this notice must be based on regional emissions analyses using MOVES2010a or a more recent version of MOVES that has been approved for use in conformity determinations.13 12 EPA described the circumstances under which an area would be required to use MOVES in transportation conformity determinations in its March 2, 2010, Federal Register notice officially releasing MOVES2010 for use in SIPs and transportation conformity determinations. (75 FR 9413) 13 EPA described the circumstances under which an area would be required to use MOVES in transportation conformity determinations in its March 2, 2010 Federal Register notice officially releasing MOVES2010 for use in SIPs and transportation conformity determinations. (75 FR 9413) PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 b. What is a safety margin? A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. As shown in Table 4, the Canton-Massillon area is projected to have safety margins for NOX and direct PM2.5 of 8,404.59 tpy and 344.19 tpy in 2025 (the difference between the attainment year, 2008, emissions and the projected year of 2025 emissions for all sources in the Canton-Massillon area). The transportation conformity rule allows areas to allocate all or a portion of a ‘‘safety margin’’ to the area’s motor E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 48102 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules vehicle emissions budgets (40 CFR 92.124(a)). The MVEBs requested by Ohio contain NOX safety margins for mobile sources in 2015 and 2025 and PM2.5 safety margins for mobile sources in 2015 and 2025 are much smaller than the allowable safety margins reflected in the total emissions for the CantonMassillon area. The state is not requesting allocation to the MVEBs of the entire available safety margins reflected in the demonstration of maintenance. Therefore, even though the state is requesting MVEBs that exceed the projected on-road mobile source emissions for 2015 and 2025 contained in the demonstration of maintenance, the increase in on-road mobile source emissions that can be considered for transportation conformity purposes is well within the safety margins of the overall PM2.5 maintenance demonstration. Therefore, EPA believes that the requested budgets, including the requested portion of the safety margins, provide for a quantity of mobile source emissions that would be expected to maintain the PM2.5 standard. Once allocated to mobile sources, these portions of the safety margins will not be available for use by other sources. pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 c. What action is EPA taking on the submitted motor vehicle emissions budgets? EPA, through this rulemaking, has found adequate and is proposing to approve the MVEBs for use to determine transportation conformity in the CantonMassillon area, because EPA has determined that the area can maintain attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the relevant maintenance period with mobile source emissions at the levels of the MVEBs including the requested safety margins. These budgets must be used in conformity determinations if this rulemaking goes final. (40 CFR 93.118(f)(iii)) Additionally, the determinations must be based on regional emissions analyses using MOVES2010b or a more recent version of MOVES that has been approved for use in conformity determinations.14 6. 2005 and 2008 Comprehensive Emissions Inventory As discussed above, section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires areas to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory. 14 EPA described the circumstances under which an area would be required to use MOVES in transportation conformity determinations in its March 2, 2010, Federal Register notice officially releasing MOVES2010 for use in SIPs and transportation conformity determinations. (75 FR 9413) VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 Ohio submitted a 2005 inventory and a 2008 base year emissions inventory that meets this requirement. Emissions contained in the submittals cover the general source categories of point sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and nonroad mobile sources. Further discussion on the methodology of compiling the emissions inventories can be found in section V.3.b above, and in the docket. Ohio’s supplemental submittal of base year emission inventories of VOCs and ammonia are also found in the docket and summarized in Table 6, below. TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF 2007 BASE YEAR EMISSIONS OF AMMONIA AND VOCS FOR THE CANTON-MASSILLON AREA BY SOURCE TYPE [tpy] Ammonia VOC from Ohio to change the legal designation of the Canton-Massillon area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Canton-Massillon area as a revision to the Ohio SIP because the plan meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 and 2008 emissions inventories for primary PM2.5, NOX, and SO2, documented in Ohio’s April 16, 2012, submittal as satisfying the requirement in section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for a comprehensive, current emission inventory. Finally, EPA finds adequate and is approving 2015 and 2025 primary PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Canton-Massillon area. These MVEBs will be used in future transportation conformity analyses for the area. VI. What are the effects of EPA’s proposed actions? If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change the official designation of the CantonTotal ................... 1666.11 13692.06 Massillon area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 All emissions discussed in Tables 2, CFR part 81, from nonattainment to 3, and 6 above were documented in the attainment. If EPA’s proposal is docket and the appendices of Ohio’s finalized, this action would approve the redesignation request and supplemental maintenance plan for the 1997 annual submittals. EPA has reviewed Ohio’s and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards for documentation of the emissions the Canton-Massillon area, as well as inventory techniques and data sources the 2005 and 2008 emissions used for the derivation of the 2005, inventories included with the 2007, and 2008 emissions estimates, and redesignation request, as revisions to the has found that Ohio has thoroughly Ohio SIP. documented the derivation of these VII. Statutory and Executive Order emissions inventories. The submittal Reviews from the state shows that the 2008 Under the CAA, redesignation of an emissions inventory is currently the most complete emissions inventories for area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the maintenance plan under section Canton-Massillon area. Based upon 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the EPA’s review, we propose to find that status of a geographical area and do not the 2005 and 2007/2008 emissions inventories are as complete and accurate impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those as possible given the input data available to Ohio, and we are proposing imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself to approve them under CAA section create any new requirements, but rather 172(c)(3). results in the applicability of 7. Summary of Proposed Actions requirements contained in the CAA for EPA has previously determined that areas that have been redesignated to the Canton-Massillon area has attained attainment. Moreover, the Administrator the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 is required to approve a SIP submission NAAQS. EPA is proposing to determine that complies with the provisions of the that the Canton-Massillon area Act and applicable Federal regulations. continues to attain the 1997 annual and 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard using the Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, latest three years of certified, qualityEPA’s role is to approve state choices, assured data, and that the area has met provided that they meet the criteria of the requirements for redesignation the CAA. Accordingly, this action under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. merely approves state law as meeting EPA is proposing to approve the request Federal requirements and does not Point .......................... Area .......................... Nonroad .................... On-road ..................... PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 21.29 1491.50 2.66 148.98 Sfmt 4702 919.30 4825.67 2723.36 5199.46 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these actions: • Are not a ’’significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter. 40 CFR Part 81 Air pollution control, Environmental protection, National Parks, Wilderness. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:22 Aug 06, 2013 Jkt 229001 Dated: July 24, 2013. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. 2013–18951 Filed 8–6–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0899; FRL–9842–3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; Redesignation of the Chicago Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter Standard Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: EPA is proposing to grant a redesignation request and State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request submitted by the state of Illinois on October 15, 2010, and supplemented on September 16, 2011, and May 6, 2013. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) requested EPA to redesignate the Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, Illinois-Indiana (IL–IN) nonattainment area to attainment of the 1997 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) and requested EPA approval of Illinois’ PM2.5 maintenance plan and PM2.5-related emission inventories for this area as revisions of the Illinois SIP. The Illinois portion (Chicago area) of this nonattainment area is: Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties, Aux Sable and Goose Lake Townships in Grundy County, and Oswego Township in Kendall County. EPA is proposing to grant the state’s redesignation request and to approve the requested Illinois SIP revisions, including the state’s plan for maintaining attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in this area through 2025. EPA is also proposing to approve Illinois’ 2008 and 2025 Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and PM2.5 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the Chicago area. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve Illinois’ 2002 NOX, Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Volatile Organic Compound, ammonia, and primary PM2.5 emission inventories for this area. In the context of this proposal to redesignate the Chicago area, EPA addresses a number of additional issues, including the effects of two decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit or Court): The Court’s August 21, 2012, SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 48103 decision to vacate and remand to EPA the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR); and the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision to remand to EPA two final rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5 standard. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2013. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– OAR–2010–0899, by one of the following methods: • https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • EMail: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. • Fax: (312) 408–2279. • Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. • Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and Maintenance 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’s 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–2010– 0899. 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 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48087-48103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18951]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0564; FRL-9844-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Ohio; Redesignation of the Canton-Massillon Area to Attainment of the 
1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Standards for Fine Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 26, 2012, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 
submitted a request for EPA to redesignate the Canton-Massillon area 
(Stark County), Ohio, nonattainment area to attainment of the 1997 
annual and 2006 24-hour standards for fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5). EPA is proposing to grant Ohio's request. EPA is 
proposing to determine that the Canton-Massillon area attains the 1997 
annual and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, based on the 
most recent three years of certified air quality data. EPA is proposing 
to approve, as revisions to the Ohio state implementation plan (SIP), 
the state's plan for maintaining the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or 
standard) through 2025 for the area. EPA is proposing to approve the 
2005 and 2008 emissions inventories for the Canton-Massillon area as 
meeting the comprehensive emissions inventory requirement of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA or Act). Ohio's maintenance plan submission includes a 
motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) for the mobile source contribution 
of PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) to the Canton-
Massillon area for transportation conformity purposes; EPA is proposing 
to approve the MVEBs for 2015 and 2025 into the Ohio SIP for 
transportation conformity purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0564, 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 (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604.

[[Page 48088]]

    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section 
(AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted 
during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The 
Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2012-0564. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 
We recommend that you telephone Carolyn Persoon, Environmental 
Engineer, at (312) 353-8290 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Persoon, Environmental 
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8290, persoon.carolyn@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is 
arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What actions is EPA proposing to take?
III. What is the background for these actions?
IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment?
V. What is EPA's analysis of the state's request?
    1. Attainment
    2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 
110 and Part D and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) 
(Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 107(d)(3)(E)(ii))
    3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and 
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of 
the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and 
Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions (Section 
107(d)(3)(E)(iii))
    4. Ohio Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to 
Section 175A of the CAA (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv))
    5. Adequacy of Ohio's MVEB
    6. 2005 and 2008 Comprehensive Emissions Inventory
    7. Summary of Proposed Actions
VI. What are the effects of EPA's proposed actions?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

II. What actions is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to take several actions related to redesignation 
of the Canton-Massillon area to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to determine that the 
area is attaining the NAAQS for PM2.5, based on quality-
assured and state certified ambient air monitoring data for 2010-2012, 
the most recent three years of quality-assured data for the area. EPA 
is proposing to find that Ohio meets the requirements for redesignation 
of the Canton-Massillon area to attainment of the 1997 and 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
    Second, EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's annual PM2.5 
maintenance plan for the Canton-Massillon area as a revision to the 
Ohio SIP, including the MVEB for PM2.5 and NOX 
emissions for the mobile source contribution of the Canton-Massillon 
area.
    Finally, EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's emissions inventories 
as satisfying the requirement in section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for a 
current, accurate and comprehensive emission inventory. These emission 
inventories include primary PM2.5, NOX and sulfur 
dioxide (SO2) inventories included in its June 26, 2012, 
initial submittal and 2007 emissions for volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs) and ammonia inventories included in a supplemental submission to 
EPA on April 29, 2013.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing to grant the request from the state of 
Ohio to change the designation of Stark County (the Canton-Massillon 
area) from nonattainment to attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. What is the background for these actions?

    Fine particulate pollution can be emitted directly from a source 
(primary PM2.5) or formed secondarily through chemical 
reactions in the atmosphere involving precursor pollutants emitted from 
a variety of sources. Sulfates are a type of secondary particulate 
formed from SO2 emissions from power plants

[[Page 48089]]

and industrial facilities. Nitrates, another common type of secondary 
particulate, are formed from combustion emissions of NOX 
from power plants, mobile sources and other combustion sources.
    The first air quality standards for PM2.5 were 
promulgated on July 18, 1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated an annual 
standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) of 
ambient air, based on a three year average of the annual mean 
PM2.5 concentrations at each monitoring site. In the same 
rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour PM2.5 standard at 65 
[micro]g/m\3\, based on a three year average of the 98th percentile of 
24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at each monitoring site.
    On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, EPA published air quality area 
designations for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard based on air 
quality data for calendar years 2001-2003. In that rulemaking, EPA 
designated the Canton-Massillon area as nonattainment for the 1997 
annual PM2.5 standard.
    On October 17, 2006, at 71 FR 61144, EPA retained the annual 
PM2.5 standard at 15 [micro]g/m\3\ (2006 annual 
PM2.5 standard), but revised the 24-hour standard to 35 
[micro]g/m\3\, based again on the three-year average of the annual 98th 
percentile of the 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations. In response 
to legal challenges of the 2006 annual PM2.5 standard, the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 
Circuit or Court) remanded this standard to EPA for further 
consideration. See American Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork 
Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). On 
December 14, 2012, EPA finalized a rule revising the PM2.5 
annual standard to 12 [micro]g/m\3\ based on current scientific 
evidence regarding the protection of public health. Since the Canton-
Massillon area is designated as nonattainment for the 1997 annual and 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards, today's proposed action 
addresses redesignation to attainment only for these standards.
    In this proposed redesignation, EPA takes into account the January 
4, 2013, Court ruling in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, in 
which 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).
    Also noted are the decisions of the D.C. Circuit regarding the 
status of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). In the first of 
the two Court decisions, the D.C. Circuit, on August 21, 2012, issued 
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), 
which vacated and remanded CSAPR and ordered EPA to continue 
administering the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) ``pending . . . 
development of a valid replacement.'' EME Homer City at 38. The D.C. 
Circuit denied all petitions for rehearing on January 24, 2013. On 
August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. In 
that decision, the Court also ordered EPA to continue administering 
CAIR ``pending the promulgation of a valid replacement.'' EME Homer 
City, 696 F.3d at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all petitions for 
rehearing on January 24, 2013. EPA and other parties filed petitions 
for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 24, 2013, the Supreme 
Court granted certiorari and agreed to review the D.C. Circuit's 
decision in EME Homer City. The Supreme Court's grant of certiorari, by 
itself, does not alter the status of CAIR or CSAPR. At this time, CAIR 
remains in place. EPA has determined that the status of both CSAPR and 
CAIR do not affect the ability of the Canton-Massillon area to attain 
or maintain the PM NAAQS, which is discussed in more detail in section 
V.3.aii.

IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment?

    The CAA sets forth the requirements for redesignating a 
nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of 
the CAA allows for redesignation provided that: (1) The Administrator 
determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS based on 
current air quality data; (2) the Administrator has fully approved an 
applicable SIP for the area under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the 
Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to 
permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting from 
implementation of the applicable SIP, Federal air pollution control 
regulations and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions; 
(4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the 
area meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the 
state containing the area has met all requirements applicable to the 
area for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the 
CAA.

V. What is EPA's analysis of the state's request?

    EPA is proposing to redesignate the Canton-Massillon area to 
attainment of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 
and is proposing to approve Ohio's maintenance plan for the area and 
other related SIP revisions. The bases for these actions follow.

1. Attainment

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Canton-Massillon area is 
attaining the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based 
upon the most recent three years of complete, certified and quality-
assured data. Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the annual 
primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the 
annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 
40 CFR part 50, appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ 
at all monitoring sites in the area. Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR 
50.13 and in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, the 24-hour 
primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are met when the 98th 
percentile 24-hour concentration is less than or equal to 35 [micro]g/
m\3\.
    EPA has reviewed the ambient air quality monitoring data in the 
Canton-Massillon area, consistent with the requirements contained at 40 
CFR part 50. EPA's review focused on state certified data recorded in 
the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database for the Canton-Massillon 
PM2.5 nonattainment area for 2009-2011 and for 2010-2012.
    The Canton-Massillon area has two monitors located in Stark County, 
Ohio. Preliminary calculations of design values for 2010-2012, the most 
recent three full years of data, the two monitors had design values of 
13.0 and 11.8 [micro]g/m\3\ for the 1997 annual standard, and 29 and 26 
[micro]g/m\3\ for the 2006 24-hour standard. The monitors in the 
Canton-Massillon area recorded complete data for 2010-2012 in 
accordance with criteria set forth by EPA in 40 CFR part 50, appendix 
N, where a complete year of air quality data comprises four calendar 
quarters, with each quarter containing data with at least 75% capture 
of the scheduled sampling days. Available data are considered to be 
sufficient for comparison to the NAAQS if three consecutive complete 
years of data exist.

[[Page 48090]]



  Table 1--The 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Design Values for the Canton-Massillon Monitors (in [micro]g/
                                                      m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Annual      24-Hour       Annual      24-Hour
            County                          Site                standard     standard     standard     standard
                                                               2009-2011    2009-2011    2010-2012    2010-2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stark, OH\1\..................                     391510017         13.4           30         13.0           29
Stark, OH.....................                     391510020         11.9           28         11.8           26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Design values for the site 391510017 were incomplete for 2009-2011 due to one quarter in 2009, substitution
  analysis for 2009-2011 showed attainment for the annual standard. 2010-2012 data was complete for both
  standards.

    EPA's review of these monitoring data supports EPA's determination 
that the Canton-Massillon area has monitored attainment for the most 
recent three years of data. Therefore, EPA proposes to determine that 
the Canton-Massillon area is attaining the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 standards.

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and 
Part D and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) (Sections 
107(d)(3)(E)(v) and 107(d)(3)(E)(ii))

    We believe that Ohio has met all currently applicable SIP 
requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Canton-Massillon 
area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). We are 
also proposing to find that the Ohio SIP meets all SIP requirements 
currently applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D of 
title I of the CAA, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). We are 
proposing to find that all applicable requirements of the Ohio SIP for 
purposes of redesignation have been met, in accordance with section 
107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As discussed below, in this action EPA is proposing 
to approve Ohio's 2005 and 2008 emissions inventory, as well as the 
supplemental submission to the emissions inventory of 2007 VOC and 
ammonia data made on April 30, 2013, as meeting the section 172(c)(3) 
comprehensive emissions inventory requirement. In making these proposed 
determinations, we have ascertained which SIP requirements are 
applicable for purposes of redesignation, and concluded that SIP 
measures meeting those requirements are approved or will be approved by 
the time of final rulemaking.
a. Ohio Has Met All Applicable Requirements for Purposes of 
Redesignation of the Canton-Massillon Area Under Section 110 and Part D 
of the CAA
i. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
    Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the general 
requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the 
implementation plan submitted by a state must have been adopted by the 
state after reasonable public notice and hearing, and, among other 
things, must: include enforceable emission limitations and other 
control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the 
requirements of the CAA; provide for establishment and operation of 
appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary to 
monitor ambient air quality; provide for implementation of a source 
permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any 
stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; include 
provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) and part D, New Source Review (NSR) permit 
programs; include criteria for stationary source emission control 
measures, monitoring and reporting; include provisions for air quality 
modeling; and provide for public and local agency participation in 
planning and emission control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain measures 
to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air 
quality problems in another state. EPA believes that the requirements 
linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation are the 
relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The 
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to 
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular 
area in the state. Thus, we believe that these requirements should not 
be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of 
redesignation.
    Further, we believe that the other section 110 elements described 
above that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and 
not linked with an area's attainment status are also not applicable 
requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to 
these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment. We 
conclude that only the section 110 and part D requirements that are 
linked with a particular area's designation are the relevant measures 
which we may consider in evaluating a redesignation request. This 
approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability of 
conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements for redesignation 
purposes, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See 
Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-
53176, October 10, 1996) and (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and 
Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See 
also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour ozone 
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 
2001).
    We have reviewed the Ohio SIP and have concluded that it meets the 
general SIP requirements under section 110 of the CAA to the extent 
they are applicable for purposes of this redesignation. EPA has 
previously approved provisions of Ohio's SIP addressing section 110 
requirements, including provisions addressing particulate matter, at 40 
CFR 52.1870, respectively). On December 5, 2007, and September 4, 2009, 
Ohio made submittals addressing ``infrastructure SIP'' elements 
required under CAA section 110(a)(2). EPA proposed approval of the 
December 5, 2007, submittal on April 28, 2011, at 76 FR 23757, and 
published final approval on July 14, 2011, at 76 FR 41075. The 
requirements of section 110(a)(2), however, are statewide requirements 
that are not linked to the PM2.5 nonattainment status of the 
Canton-Massillon area. Therefore, EPA believes that these SIP elements 
are not applicable requirements for purposes of review of the state's 
PM2.5 redesignation request.
ii. Part D Requirements
    EPA is proposing to determine that, upon approval of the base year

[[Page 48091]]

emissions inventories discussed in section V.6. of this rulemaking, the 
Ohio SIP will meet the SIP requirements for the Canton-Massillon area 
applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D of the CAA.
    Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the CAA, sets 
forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all 
nonattainment areas.
(1). Subpart 1
(a). Section 172 Requirements.
    For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the 
applicable section 172 SIP requirements for the Canton-Massillon area 
are contained in section 172(c)(1)-(9). A thorough discussion of the 
requirements contained in section 172 can be found in the General 
Preamble for Implementation of title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).
    Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all nonattainment areas to 
provide for the implementation of all Reasonably Achievable Control 
Measures (RACM) as expeditiously as practicable and to provide for 
attainment of the primary NAAQS. EPA interprets this requirement to 
impose a duty on all nonattainment areas to consider all available 
control measures and to adopt and implement such measures as are 
reasonably available for implementation in each area as components of 
the area's attainment demonstration. Because attainment has been 
reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment, 
and section 172(c)(1) requirements are no longer considered to be 
applicable as long as the area continues to attain the standard until 
redesignation. (40 CFR 51.1004(c).)
    The Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirement under section 
172(c)(2) is defined as progress that must be made toward attainment. 
This requirement is not relevant for purposes of redesignation because 
the Canton-Massillon area has monitored attainment of the 1997 annual 
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. (General Preamble, 57 FR 
13564). See also 40 CFR 51.918. In addition, because the Canton-
Massillon area has attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS and is no longer subject to an RFP requirement, 
the requirement to submit the section 172(c)(9) contingency measures is 
not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Id.
    Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a 
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. Ohio 
submitted a 2005 (nonattainment year) and 2008 (attainment year) 
emissions inventories for SO2, NOX, and directly 
emitted PM2.5 as part of their redesignation request, and 
Ohio supplemented these inventories with emission inventories for VOC 
and ammonia on April 29, 2013. As discussed below in section V.6, EPA 
is approving both the 2005 and 2008 base year inventory as meeting the 
section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirement for the Canton-
Massillon area.
    Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of 
allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in an 
area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the 
construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources 
anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA approved Ohio's current NSR 
program on January 10, 2003 (68 FR 1366). Nonetheless, since PSD 
requirements will apply after redesignation, the area need not have a 
fully-approved NSR program for purposes of this redesignation, provided 
that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. 
A detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from 
Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated 
October 14, 1994, entitled, ''Part D New Source Review Requirements for 
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.'' Ohio has demonstrated 
that the Canton-Massillon area will be able to maintain the standard 
without part D NSR in effect; therefore, the state need not have a 
fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the 
redesignation request. The state's PSD program will become effective in 
the Canton-Massillon area upon redesignation to attainment. See 
rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); 
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); 
Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, 
Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).
    Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures 
necessary to provide for attainment of the standard. Because attainment 
has been reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for 
attainment.
    Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable 
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we believe the Ohio's 
SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for purposes 
of redesignation.
    (b) Section 176(c)(4)(D) Conformity SIP Requirements.
    The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation 
plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under title 
23 of the U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act (transportation 
conformity), as well as to all other Federally-supported or funded 
projects (general conformity).
    Section 176(c) of the CAA was amended by provisions contained in 
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which was signed into law on August 10, 
2005 (Pub. L. 109-59). Among the changes Congress made to this section 
of the CAA were streamlined requirements for state transportation 
conformity SIPs. State transportation conformity regulations must be 
consistent with Federal conformity regulations and address three 
specific requirements related to consultation, enforcement and 
enforceability. EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the 
transportation conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes 
of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) for two 
reasons.
    First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the 
transportation conformity provisions of the CAA continues to apply to 
areas after redesignation to attainment since such areas would be 
subject to a section 175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA's Federal 
conformity rules require the performance of conformity analyses in the 
absence of Federally-approved state rules. Therefore, because areas are 
subject to the transportation conformity requirements regardless of 
whether they are redesignated to attainment and, because they must 
implement conformity under Federal rules if state rules are not yet 
approved, EPA believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as 
not applying for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. See 
Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this 
interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 62749-62750 (Dec. 7, 1995) 
(Tampa, Florida). Ohio has an approved transportation conformity SIP 
(72 FR 20945). Ohio is in the process of updating its approved 
transportation conformity SIP, and EPA will review its provisions when 
they are submitted.
(2). Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding 
PM2.5 Implementation under Subpart 4
(a). Background
    As discussed above, on January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources 
Defense Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit

[[Page 48092]]

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. Although the Court's ruling did not directly address the 2006 
PM2.5 standard, EPA is taking into account the Court's 
position on subpart 4 and the 1997 PM2.5 standard in 
evaluating redesignations for the 2006 standard.
(b). Proposal on This Issue
    EPA is proposing to determine that the Court's January 4, 2013, 
decision does not prevent EPA from redesignating the Canton-Massillon 
area to attainment. Even in light of the Court's decision, 
redesignation for this area is appropriate under the CAA and EPA's 
longstanding interpretations of the CAA's provisions regarding 
redesignation. EPA first explains its longstanding interpretation that 
requirements that are imposed, or that become due, after a complete 
redesignation request is submitted for an area that is attaining the 
standard are not applicable for purposes of evaluating a redesignation 
request. Second, EPA then shows that, even if EPA applies the subpart 4 
requirements to the Canton-Massillon redesignation request and 
disregards the provisions of its 1997 PM2.5 implementation 
rule recently remanded by the Court, the state's request for 
redesignation of this area still qualifies for approval. EPA's 
discussion takes into account the effect of the Court's ruling on the 
area's maintenance plan, which EPA views as approvable when subpart 4 
requirements are considered.
(i). 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 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 Canton-Massillon 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) 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.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 Canton-Massillon 
redesignation, the subpart 4 requirements were not due at the time the 
state submitted the redesignation request is in keeping with the EPA's 
interpretation of subpart 2 requirements for subpart 1 ozone areas 
redesignated subsequent to the 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 CAA for this purpose.

[[Page 48093]]

    Second, a fundamental premise for redesignating a nonattainment 
area to attainment is that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS due 
to emission reductions from existing controls. Thus, an area for which 
a redesignation request has been submitted would have already attained 
the NAAQS as a result of satisfying statutory requirements that came 
due prior to the submission of the request. Absent a showing that 
unadopted and unimplemented requirements are necessary for future 
maintenance, it is reasonable to view the requirements applicable for 
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request as including only 
those SIP requirements that have already come due. These are the 
requirements that led to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, for 
redesignation approval, that a state also satisfy additional SIP 
requirements coming due after the state submits its complete 
redesignation request, and while EPA is reviewing it, would compel the 
state to do more than is necessary to attain the NAAQS, without a 
showing that the additional requirements are necessary for maintenance.
    In the context of this redesignation, the timing and nature of the 
Court's January 4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. EPA compound the 
consequences of imposing requirements that come due after the 
redesignation request is submitted. The state submitted its 
redesignation request on July 5, 2011, but the Court did not issue its 
decision remanding EPA's 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule 
concerning the applicability of the provisions of subpart 4 until 
January 2013.
    To require the state's fully-completed and pending redesignation 
request to comply now with requirements of subpart 4 that the Court 
announced only in January, 2013, would be to give retroactive effect to 
such requirements when the state had no notice that it was required to 
meet them. The D.C. Circuit recognized the inequity of this type of 
retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 
2002),\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 the state of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Sierra 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii). Subpart 4 Requirements and Ohio 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 
Canton-Massillon area still qualifies for redesignation to attainment. 
As explained below, EPA believes that the redesignation request for the 
Canton-Massillon 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 Canton-Massillon 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). The subpart 1 
requirements include, among other things, provisions for attainment 
demonstrations, RACM, 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, we are 
considering the Canton-Massillon 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 PSD program after 
redesignation. A detailed rationale for this view is

[[Page 48094]]

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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The requirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request 
for redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality 
data for the area must show that the area has already attained. 
Showing that the state will make RFP towards attainment will, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
therefore, have no meaning at that point.

``General Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of the CAA 
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 \6\ 
and thus are now past due, those requirements do not apply to an area 
that is attaining the 1997 and 2006 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    Elsewhere in this notice, EPA proposes to determine that the area 
has attained the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards. Under its 
longstanding interpretation, EPA is proposing to determine here that 
the area meets the attainment-related plan requirements of subparts 1 
and 4.
    Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude that the requirements to submit 
an attainment demonstration under 189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination 
under section 172(c)1 and section 189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration 
under 189(c)(1), and contingency measure requirements under section 
172(c)(9) are satisfied for purposes of evaluating the redesignation 
request.
(iii). Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5 Precursors
    The D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA remanded to EPA the two rules at 
issue in the case with instructions to EPA to re-promulgate them 
consistent with the requirements of subpart 4. EPA in this section 
addresses the Court's opinion with respect to PM2.5 
precursors. While past implementation of subpart 4 for PM10 
has allowed for control of PM10 precursors such as 
NOX from major stationary, mobile, and area sources in order 
to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, CAA section 
189(e) specifically provides that control requirements for major 
stationary sources of direct PM10 shall also apply to 
PM10 precursors from those sources, except where EPA 
determines that major stationary sources of such precursors ``do not 
contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the 
standard in the area.''
    EPA's 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule, remanded by the 
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. Sec.  7513a(e) 
[section 189(e)].


[[Page 48095]]


Id. at 21, n.7. For a number of reasons, EPA believes that its proposed 
redesignation of the Canton-Massillon area is consistent with the 
Court's decision on this aspect of subpart 4. First, while the Court, 
citing section 189(e), stated that ``for a PM10 area 
governed by subpart 4, a precursor is `presumptively regulated,''' the 
Court expressly declined to decide the specific challenge to EPA's 1997 
PM2.5 implementation rule provisions regarding ammonia and 
VOC as precursors. The Court had no occasion to reach whether and how 
it was substantively necessary to regulate any specific precursor in a 
particular PM2.5 nonattainment area, and did not address 
what might be necessary for purposes of acting upon a redesignation 
request.
    However, even if EPA takes the view that the requirements of 
subpart 4 were deemed applicable at the time the state submitted the 
redesignation request, and disregards the implementation rule's 
rebuttable presumptions regarding ammonia and VOC as PM2.5 
precursors, (and any similar provisions reflected in the guidance for 
the 2006 PM2.5 standard) 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 
Canton-Massillon, EPA believes that doing so is consistent with 
proposing redesignation of the area for the 1997 PM2.5 
standard. The Canton-Massillon area has attained both standards 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.\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 ammonia 
and VOC. Thus we must address here whether additional controls of 
ammonia and VOC from major stationary sources are required under 
section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to redesignate the area for the 
1997 PM2.5 standard. As explained below, we do not believe 
that any additional controls of ammonia and VOC are required in the 
context of this redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 Act requirements may suffice to 
relieve a state from the need to adopt precursor controls under section 
189(e) (57 FR 13542). EPA in this proposal proposes to determine that 
the SIP has met the provisions of section 189(e) with respect to 
ammonia and VOCs as precursors. This proposed determination is based on 
our findings that (1) the Canton-Massillon 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.\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 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 Canton-Massillon area. See 57 FR 13539-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Canton-Massillon area has reduced VOC emissions through 
the implementation of various SIP approved VOC control programs and 
various on-road and nonroad 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 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.\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 Canton-Massillon area has already attained the 
1997 and 2006 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 Canton-
Massillon area. In the context of a redesignation, the area has shown 
that it has attained both standards. Moreover, the state has shown and 
EPA is proposing 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 Canton-Massillon 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 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).
    \10\ See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et al., 423 
F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, even if Ohio were required to address precursors for the 
Canton-Massillon 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

[[Page 48096]]

redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v).
b. The Canton-Massillon Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under 
Section 110(k) of the CAA
    Upon final approval of Ohio's comprehensive emissions inventories, 
EPA will have fully approved the Ohio SIP for the Canton-Massillon area 
under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for 
purposes of redesignation to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 standard. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals 
in approving a redesignation request (See page 3 of the Calcagni 
Memorandum; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 
F.3d 984, 989-990 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 
2001)), plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with 
a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25413, 25426 (May 12, 2003). Since 
the passage of the CAA of 1970, Ohio has adopted and submitted, and EPA 
has fully approved, provisions addressing various required SIP elements 
under particulate matter standards. In this action, as discussed in 
section V.6 EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's base year emissions 
inventories for the Canton-Massillon area as meeting the requirement of 
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 standard.
c. Nonattainment Requirements
    Under section 172, states with nonattainment areas must submit 
plans providing for timely attainment and meeting a variety of other 
requirements. On July 16, 2008, Ohio submitted a state-wide attainment 
demonstration for PM2.5, including the Canton-Massillon 
area. However, EPA's determination that the area attained the 1997 
PM2.5 annual and 2006 24-hour standards (76 FR 56641; 77 FR 
28264, respectively) suspended the requirement to submit certain 
planning SIPs related to attainment, including attainment demonstration 
requirements, the Reasonably Achievable Control Technology (RACT)-RACM 
requirement of section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, the RFP and attainment 
demonstration requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and (6) and 182(b)(1) 
of the CAA and the requirement for contingency measures of section 
172(c)(9) of the CAA).
    As a result, the only remaining requirement under section 172 to be 
considered is the emissions inventory required under section 172(c)(3). 
As discussed in section V.6, EPA is proposing to approve the inventory 
that Ohio submitted as part of its maintenance plan as satisfying this 
requirement.
    No SIP provisions applicable for redesignation of the Canton-
Massillon area are currently disapproved, conditionally approved or 
partially approved. If EPA approves Ohio's Canton-Massillon area 
PM2.5 emissions inventories as proposed, Ohio will have a 
fully approved SIP for all requirements applicable for purposes of 
redesignation.

3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable 
Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and 
Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other 
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii))

    EPA believes that Ohio has demonstrated that the observed air 
quality improvement in the Canton-Massillon area is due to permanent 
and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation 
of the SIP, Federal measures and other state-adopted measures.
    In making this demonstration, Ohio has calculated the change in 
emissions between 2005, one of the years used to designate the Canton-
Massillon area as nonattainment, and 2008, one of the years the Canton-
Massillon area monitored attainment. The reduction in emissions and the 
corresponding improvement in air quality over this time period can be 
attributed to a number of regulatory control measures that the Canton-
Massillon area and contributing areas have implemented in recent years.
a. Permanent and Enforceable Controls Implemented
    The following is a discussion of permanent and enforceable measures 
that have been implemented in the area:
i. Federal Emission Control Measures
    Reductions in fine particle precursor emissions have occurred 
statewide and in upwind areas as a result of Federal emission control 
measures, with additional emission reductions expected to occur in the 
future. Federal emission control measures include the following:
    Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur 
Standards. These emission control requirements result in lower 
NOX and SO2 emissions from new cars and light 
duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles. The Federal rules were 
phased in between 2004 and 2009. The EPA has estimated that, by the end 
of the phase-in period, new vehicles will emit the following 
percentages less NOX: Passenger cars (light duty vehicles)--
77%; light duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility vehicles--86%; 
and, larger sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks--69% to 
95%. EPA expects fleet wide average emissions to come to decline by 
similar percentages as new vehicles replace older vehicles. The Tier 2 
standards also reduced the sulfur content of gasoline to 30 parts per 
million (ppm) beginning in January 2006. Most gasoline sold in Ohio 
prior to January 2006 had a sulfur content of about 500 ppm.
    Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule. EPA issued this rule in July 2000. 
This rule includes standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel 
fuel, which went into effect in 2004. A second phase took effect in 
2007 which reduced fine particle emissions from heavy-duty highway 
engines and further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 
15 ppm. The total program is estimated to achieve a 90% reduction in 
direct PM2.5 emissions and a 95% reduction in NOX 
emissions for these new engines using low sulfur diesel, compared to 
existing engines using higher sulfur content diesel. The reduction in 
fuel sulfur content also yielded an immediate reduction in sulfate 
particle emissions from all diesel vehicles.
    Nonroad Diesel Rule. In May 2004, EPA promulgated a new rule for 
large nonroad diesel engines, such as those used construction, 
agriculture and mining equipment, to be phased in between 2008 and 
2014. The rule also reduces the sulfur content in nonroad diesel fuel 
by over 99%. Prior to 2006, nonroad diesel fuel averaged approximately 
3,400 ppm sulfur. This rule limited nonroad diesel sulfur content to 
500 ppm by 2006, with a further reduction to 15 ppm by 2010. The 
combined engine and fuel rules will reduce NOX and PM 
emissions from large nonroad diesel engines by over 90%, compared to 
current nonroad engines using higher sulfur content diesel. It is 
estimated that compliance with this rule will cut NOX 
emissions from nonroad diesel engines by up to 90%. This rule achieved 
some emission reductions by 2008 and was fully implemented by 2010. The 
reduction in fuel sulfur content also yielded an immediate reduction in 
sulfate particle emissions from all diesel vehicles.
    Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engine and Recreational Engine 
Standards. In November 2002 EPA promulgated emission standards for 
groups of previously unregulated nonroad engines. These engines include 
large spark-ignition engines such as those used in forklifts and 
airport ground-service equipment; recreational vehicles using spark-
ignition engines such as off-

[[Page 48097]]

highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles; and 
recreational marine diesel engines. Emission standards from large 
spark-ignition engines were implemented in two tiers, with Tier 1 
starting in 2004 and Tier 2 in 2007. Recreational vehicle emission 
standards are being phased in from 2006 through 2012. Marine Diesel 
engine standards were phased in from 2006 through 2009. With full 
implementation of the nonroad spark-ignition engine and recreational 
engine standards, an 80% reduction in NOX expected by 2020. 
Some of these emission reductions occurred by the 2008-2010 period used 
to demonstrate attainment, and additional emission reductions will 
occur during the maintenance period.
ii. Control Measures in Contributing Areas
    NOX SIP Call. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA 
issued a NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and 
22 states to reduce emissions of NOX. Affected states were 
required to comply with Phase I of the SIP Call beginning in 2004, and 
with Phase II beginning in 2007. Emission reductions resulting from 
regulations developed in response to the NOX SIP Call are 
permanent and enforceable.
    CAIR. The Canton-Massillon area has demonstrated that attainment of 
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be maintained with or without the 
implementation of CAIR or CSAPR. The Canton-Massillon area has no local 
electric generating units (EGUs) that would be impacted by CAIR or 
CSAPR, and in fact, the area's emissions are dominated by mobile 
sources (Table 2). Mobile sources in the area comprise 85% of the 
NOX emissions, 38% of the SO2 emission, and 46% 
of the PM2.5 emissions from the base-year inventory. In 
addition, regional emissions will not affect the attainment or 
maintenance of the Canton-Massillon area. Modeling conducted by EPA 
during the CSAPR rulemaking process demonstrates that the counties in 
the Canton-Massillon PM2.5 nonattainment area will have 
concentrations below the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 standards in both 2012 and 2014 without taking into 
account emissions reductions from CAIR or CSAPR. See ``Air Quality 
Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document'', App. B. This modeling 
is available in the docket for this proposed redesignation action.
    Moreover, in its August 2012 decision, the Court also ordered EPA 
to continue implementing CAIR. See EME Homer City Generation LP v. EPA, 
696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In sum, neither the current status of CAIR 
nor the current status of CSAPR affects any of the criteria for 
proposed approval of this redesignation request for the Canton-
Massillon area.
iii. Consent Decrees
    On December 31, 2012, the Marathon petroleum refinery in Canton was 
required by a Federal consent decree to shut down an open waste gas 
flare, resulting in reductions of VOCs, SO2 and direct PM. 
The Canton refinery is also required under this consent decree to meet 
specific limits on their capped gas flare that must be incorporated 
into the permanent construction permit. These emission reductions will 
add to continued reductions for other sources in the area throughout 
the maintenance period. In a 2011 state consent decree, Akron Iron & 
Metal, LLC, in Canton, added baghouse controls resulting in reductions 
of direct PM in the Canton area.
b. Emission Reductions
    Ohio developed emissions inventories for NOX, direct 
PM2.5 and SO2 for 2005, one of the years used to 
designate the area as nonattainment, and 2008, one of the years the 
Canton-Massillon area monitored attainment of the standard.
    Area source emissions the Canton-Massillon area for 2005 were taken 
from periodic emissions inventories.\11\ These 2005 area source 
emission estimates were extrapolated to 2008. Source growth factors 
were supplied by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Periodic emission inventories are derived by states every 
three years and reported to the EPA. These periodic emission 
inventories are required by the Federal Consolidated Emissions 
Reporting Rule, codified at 40 CFR Subpart A. EPA revised these and 
other emission reporting requirements in a final rule published on 
December 17, 2008, at 73 FR 76539.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonroad mobile source emissions were extrapolated from nonroad 
mobile source emissions reported in EPA's 2005 National Emissions 
Inventory (NEI). Contractors were employed by LADCO to estimate 
emissions for commercial marine vessels and railroads.
    On-road mobile source emissions were calculated using EPA's mobile 
source emission factor model, MOVES2010a, in conjunction with 
transportation model results developed by the Stark County Area 
Transportation Study (SCATS).
    All emissions estimates discussed below were documented in the 
submittal and appendices of Ohio's redesignation request submittal from 
April 16, 2012, and their April 30, 2013, supplemental submittal. For 
these data and additional emissions inventory data, the reader is 
referred to EPA's digital docket for this rule, https://www.regulations.gov, which includes digital copies of Ohio's submittal.
    Emissions data in tpy for the Canton-Massillon area are shown in 
Tables 2 and 3, below.

   Table 2--Summary of 2005 Emissions of SO2, NOX, and Directly Emitted PM2.5 for the Canton-Massillon Area by
                                                   Source Type
                                                      [tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        SO2             NOX            PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point (EGU).....................................................            0.00            0.00            0.00
Non-EGU.........................................................          553.14        1,129.41          380.10
On-road.........................................................          191.33       14,004.65          433.47
Nonroad.........................................................          261.01        2,801.96          231.64
Area............................................................          163.72        1,313.88          370.87
MAR.............................................................           38.35          537.27           14.58
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Canton-Massillon......................................        1,207.55       19,787.17        1,430.66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 48098]]


   Table 3--Comparison of PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 Emissions From a Nonattainment Year (2005) and Emissions for an
                              Attainment Year (2008) for the Canton-Massillon Area
                                                      [tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Net change
                                                                       2005            2008         (2005-2008)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5...........................................................        1,430.66        1,257.11         -173.55
NOX.............................................................       19,787.17       16,227.26       -3,559.91
SO2.............................................................        1,207.55          906.79         -300.76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 shows that the Canton-Massillon area shows a decrease in 
direct PM2.5 emissions by 173.55 tons, the area reduced 
NOX emissions by 3,559.91tons and SO2 emissions 
by 300.76 tons between 2005, a nonattainment year, and 2008, an 
attainment year. Ohio did not attribute attainment to any changes in 
VOC or ammonia emissions; instead to changes in SO2, 
NOX, and PM2.5 emissions. EPA agrees that 
emission reductions from sources of SO2, NOX, and 
PM2.5 brought the area into attainment, with most emission 
reductions occurring from Federal mobile source engine standards and 
fuel standards (Table 2 and 3). Based on the information summarized 
above, Ohio has adequately demonstrated that the improvement in air 
quality is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions.

4. Ohio Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A 
of the CAA (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv))

    In conjunction with Ohio's request to redesignate the Canton-
Massillon nonattainment area to attainment status, Ohio has submitted a 
SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the area through 2025.
a. What is required in a maintenance plan?
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of a 
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to 
attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued 
attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after EPA 
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after 
redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan which 
demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for ten 
years following the initial ten year maintenance period. To address the 
possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must 
contain contingency measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA 
deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future annual 
PM2.5 violations.
    The Calcagni Memorandum provides additional guidance on the content 
of a maintenance plan. The memorandum states that a maintenance plan 
should address the following items: the attainment emissions 
inventories, a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for the 
ten years of the maintenance period, a commitment to maintain the 
existing monitoring network, factors and procedures to be used for 
verification of continued attainment of the NAAQS and a contingency 
plan to prevent or correct future violations of the NAAQS.
b. Attainment Inventory
    Ohio developed emissions inventories for NOX, direct 
PM2.5 and SO2 for 2008, one of the years in the 
period during which the Canton-Massillon area monitored attainment of 
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, as 
described previously. The attainment levels of emissions for the area 
are summarized in Tables 3, above.
c. Demonstration of Maintenance
    Along with the redesignation request, Ohio submitted a revision to 
its PM2.5 SIP to include a maintenance plan for the Canton-
Massillon area, as required by section 175A of the CAA. Section 175A 
requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment to submit a SIP 
revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the area ``for 
at least 10 years after the redesignation.'' EPA has interpreted this 
as a showing of maintenance ``for a period of ten years following 
redesignation.'' Calcagni Memorandum, p.9. Where the emissions 
inventory method of showing maintenance is used, its purpose is to show 
that emissions during the maintenance period will not increase over the 
attainment year inventory. Calcagni Memorandum, pp. 9-10.
    Ohio's submission uses emissions inventory projections for the 
years 2015 and 2025 to demonstrate maintenance for the Canton-Massillon 
area. The projected emissions were estimated by Ohio, with assistance 
from LADCO and SCATS using the MOVES2010a model. The 2015 interim year 
emissions were projected using estimates based on the 2009 and 2018 
LADCO modeling inventory, using LADCO's growth factors, for all 
sectors. The 2025 maintenance year inventory is based on emissions 
estimates from the 2018 LADCO modeling. Table 4 shows the 2008 
attainment base year emission estimates and the 2015 and 2025 emission 
projections for NOX, direct PM2.5 and 
SO2 for the Canton-Massillon area that Ohio provided in its 
April 16, 2012 submission.

   Table 4--Comparison of 2008, 2015 and 2025 NOX, Direct PM2.5 and SO2 Emission Totals (tpy) for the Canton-
                                                 Massillon Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        SO2             NOX            PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 (baseline).................................................          906.79       16,227.26        1,257.11
2015............................................................          812.89       11,001.32        1,088.72
2025............................................................          795.30        7,822.67          912.92
Change 2008-2025................................................         -111.49       -8,404.59         -344.19
                                                                             12%             52%             27%
                                                                        decrease        decrease        decrease
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 48099]]

    Table 4 shows that the Canton-Massillon area reduced NOX 
emissions by 8,404.59 tpy between 2008 and the maintenance projection 
to 2025, direct PM2.5 emissions by 344.19 tpy, and reduced 
SO2 emissions by 111.49 tpy between 2008 and 2025.
    EPA in this proposal is also considering the effect of the Court's 
remand of EPA's implementation rule, in particular the remand of 
presumptions against consideration of VOC and ammonia as 
PM2.5 precursors, on requirements for the maintenance plan 
mandated under sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To begin with, EPA 
notes that the area has attained the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 
standard and that the state has shown that attainment of those 
standards is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions.
    EPA proposes to determine that the state's maintenance plan shows 
continued maintenance of the standard by tracking the levels of the 
precursors whose control brought about attainment of the 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 standard in the Canton-Massillon area. EPA therefore 
believes that the only additional consideration related to the 
maintenance plan requirements that results from the Court's January 4, 
2013, decision is that of assessing the potential role of VOC and 
ammonia in demonstrating continued maintenance in this area. As 
explained below, based upon documentation provided by the state and 
supporting information, EPA believes that the maintenance plan for the 
Canton-Massillon 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 Canton-Massillon area are low, 
estimated to be less than 1,700 tpy. See Table 5 below. This amount of 
ammonia emissions appears especially small in comparison to the total 
amounts of NOX, and VOCs from sources in the area. Both VOC 
and NOX are also well controlled in the Canton-Massillon 
area and have decreased due to permanent and enforceable measures such 
as RACT rules controlling stationary sources previously approved (75 FR 
65572; OAC 3745-17; OAC 3745-110). Additional significant reductions 
resulted from Federal mobile source standards discussed above, 
accounting for 3,536 tpy of the NOX reductions in the area 
and 665 tpy of PM2.5 reductions between 2005 and 2008. 
Future compliance with mobile source standards is also projected to 
reduce NOX by approximately 700 tpy and PM2.5 by 
approximately 200 tpy between 2008 and 2025.
    Ohio's maintenance plan shows a projected reduction of 
NOX emissions by 8,404.59 tpy between 2008 and the 
maintenance projection to 2025, direct PM2.5 emissions of 
344.19 tpy, and reduced SO2 emissions of 111.49 tpy between 
2008 and 2025. See Table 4 above. In addition, emissions inventories 
used in EPA's regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS show that VOC emissions are projected to 
decrease by 720 tpy, respectively between 2007 and 2020. Ammonia 
emissions are projected to increase slightly between 2007 and 2020 by 8 
tpy, which is expected to have minimal air quality impact, an impact 
that will be more than compensated by the significant emissions 
reductions projected in direct PM2.5, SO2, and 
NOX. See Table 5. Given that all emissions except ammonia 
decrease significantly below attainment year levels, providing a large 
margin of safety, the minimal increase in ammonia would not be expected 
to impact the areas ability to attain either the 1997 or 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS.

   Table 5--Comparison of 2007 and 2020 VOC and Ammonia Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Canton-
                                               Massillon Area \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Ammonia                                  VOCs
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Net change                             Net change
                                        2007         2020      2007-2020       2007         2020      2007-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................        21.29        20.40        -0.89       919.30       901.40       -17.90
Area..............................      1491.50      1564.69        73.20      4825.67      4846.99        21.32
Nonroad...........................         2.66         3.04         0.38      2723.36      1612.89     -1110.47
On-road...........................       148.98        84.33       -64.65      5199.46      1847.15     -3352.30
Fires.............................         1.69         1.69         0.00        24.28        24.28         0.00
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................      1666.11      1674.16         8.04     13692.06      9232.71     -4459.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These emissions estimates were taken from the emissions inventories developed for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5
  NAAQS which can be found in the docket.

    The current air quality design values for the area are 13.0 and 29 
[mu]g/m\3\ (based on 2010-2012 air quality data), which are well below 
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 and 35 
[mu]g/m\3\. In addition, available air quality modeling analyses show 
continued maintenance of the standard during the maintenance period. 
The modeling analysis conducted for the RIA for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS indicates that the design value for this area is 
expected to continue to decline through 2020. In the RIA analysis, the 
highest 2020 modeled design value for the Canton-Massillon area is 10.8 
[mu]g/m\3\. Given that NOX, SO2, 
PM2.5, and VOC emissions are projected to decrease through 
2025, and given that ammonia emissions are expected to remain 
relatively constant, it is reasonable to conclude that monitored 
PM2.5 levels in this area will continue to decrease through 
2025.
    Thus, EPA believes that there is ample justification to conclude 
that the Canton-Massillon area will continue to maintain the standard, 
even taking into consideration the emissions of other precursors 
potentially relevant to PM2.5. After consideration of the DC 
Circuit's January 4, 2013, decision, and for the reasons set forth in 
this notice, EPA proposes to approve the state's maintenance plan and 
its request to redesignate the Canton-Massillon area to attainment for 
the PM2.5 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour NAAQS.
    As described in section V.3.b of this action, the result of Federal 
rules and consent decree actions, demonstrate that the reductions in 
emissions from point, area, and mobile sources in the Canton-Massillon 
area have occurred and are mandated to continue to occur through

[[Page 48100]]

2025 and beyond. Thus the emissions inventories set forth in Table 4 
show that the area will continue to maintain the annual 
PM2.5 standard during the maintenance period at least 
through 2025.
    Based on the information summarized above, Ohio has adequately 
demonstrated maintenance of the PM2.5 standard in this area 
for a period extending in excess of ten years from expected final 
action on Ohio's redesignation request.
d. Monitoring Network
    Ohio's plan includes a commitment to continue working with West 
Virginia to operate its EPA-approved monitoring network, as necessary 
to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. Ohio currently 
operates three PM2.5 monitors in the Canton-Massillon area. 
West Virginia currently operates three monitors in their portion of the 
Canton-Massillon area.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
    Ohio remains obligated to continue to quality-assure monitoring 
data and enter all data into AQS in accordance with Federal guidelines. 
Ohio will use these data, supplemented with additional information as 
necessary, to assure that the area continues to attain the standard. 
Ohio will also continue to develop and submit periodic emission 
inventories as required by the Federal Consolidated Emissions Reporting 
Rule (67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002) to track future levels of emissions. 
Both of these actions will help to verify continued attainment in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
f. Contingency Plan
    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or 
prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation 
of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a 
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems 
necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of 
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should 
identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and 
procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures, 
and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also 
identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the 
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The 
maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will 
implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant(s) that 
were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to 
attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
    Ohio's contingency measures include a Warning Level Response and an 
Action Level Response. An initial Warning Level Response is triggered 
when the average weighted annual mean for one year exceeds 15.5 [mu]g/
m\3\. A warning level response for the 2006 24-hour standard shall be 
prompted whenever the 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 
concentration of 35.5 [mu]g/m\3\ occurs in a single calendar year 
within the maintenance area. In that case, a study will be conducted to 
determine if the emissions trends show increases; if action is 
necessary to reverse emissions increases, Ohio will follow the same 
procedures for control selection and implementation as for an Action 
Level Response.
    The Action Level Response will be prompted by any one of the 
following: a Warning Level Response study that shows emissions 
increases, a weighted annual mean for the 1997 annual standard, or a 
98th percentile for the 24-hour standard, over a two-year period that 
exceeds the standard or a violation of the standard. If an Action Level 
Response is triggered, Ohio will adopt and implement appropriate 
control measures within 12 months from the end of the year in which 
monitored air quality triggering a response occurs.
    Ohio's candidate contingency measures include the following:
    i. Diesel emission reduction strategies;
    ii. Alternative fuels;
    iii. Statewide NOX RACT rules;
    iv. Impact crushers at recycle scrap yards using wet suppression;
    v. Tighter emission offsets for new and modified major sources;
    vi. ICI Boilers--SO2 and NOX controls;
    vii. Emission controls for:
    a. Process heaters;
    b. EGUS;
    c. Internal combustion engines;
    d. Combustion turbines;
    e. Other sources > 100 TPY;
    f. Fleet vehicles;
    g. Concrete manufacturers and;
    h. Aggregate processing plants.
    Ohio further commits to conduct ongoing review of its data, and if 
monitored concentrations or emissions are trending upward, Ohio commits 
to take appropriate steps to avoid a violation if possible. Ohio 
commits to continue implementing SIP requirements upon and after 
redesignation.
    EPA believes that Ohio's contingency measures, as well as the 
commitment to continue implementing any SIP requirements, satisfy the 
pertinent requirements of section 175A(d).
    As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Ohio commits to submit 
to the EPA an updated PM2.5 maintenance plan eight years 
after redesignation of the Canton-Massillon area to cover an additional 
ten year period beyond the initial ten year maintenance period. As 
required by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio has also committed to retain 
the PM2.5 control measures contained in the SIP prior to 
redesignation.
    For all of the reasons set forth above, EPA is proposing to approve 
Ohio's 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance plan 
for the Canton-Massillon area as meeting the requirements of CAA 
section 175A.

5. Adequacy of Ohio's MVEB

a. How are MVEBs developed and what are the MVEBs for the Canton-
Massillon area?
    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, 
control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for 
PM2.5 nonattainment areas and for areas seeking 
redesignations to attainment of the PM2.5 standard. These 
emission control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP and attainment 
demonstration SIP revisions) and maintenance plans create MVEBs based 
on on-road mobile source emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their 
precursors to address pollution from on-road transportation sources. 
The MVEBs are the portions of the total allowable emissions that are 
allocated to highway and transit vehicle use that, together with 
emissions from other sources in the area, will provide for attainment, 
RFP or maintenance, as applicable.

[[Page 48101]]

    Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an area seeking a redesignation to 
attainment is established for the last year of the maintenance plan and 
could also be established for an interim year or years. The MVEB serves 
as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. 
The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 
24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188).
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans and 
transportation improvement programs (TIPs) must be evaluated to 
determine if they conform to the purpose of the area's SIP. Conformity 
to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air 
quality violations, worsen existing air quality violations, or delay 
timely attainment of the NAAQS or any required interim milestone. If a 
transportation plan or TIP does not conform, most new transportation 
projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward. 
Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and 
procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such 
transportation activities to a SIP.
    When reviewing SIP revisions containing MVEBs, including attainment 
strategies, rate-of-progress plans, and maintenance plans, EPA must 
affirmatively find adequate and/or approve the MVEBs for use in 
determining transportation conformity before the MVEBs can be used. 
Once EPA affirmatively approves and/or finds the submitted MVEBs to be 
adequate for transportation conformity purposes, the MVEBs must be used 
by state and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed 
transportation plans and TIPs conform to the SIP as required by section 
176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining the 
adequacy of MVEBs are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Additionally, to 
approve a motor vehicle emissions budget EPA must complete a thorough 
review of the SIP, in this case the PM2.5 maintenance plans, 
and conclude that the SIP will achieve its overall purpose, in this 
case providing for maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 
standard the Canton-Massillon area.
    EPA's process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of three 
basic steps: (1) Providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2) 
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a 
public comment period; and, (3) EPA taking action on the MVEB. The 
process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs is codified 
at 40 CFR 93.118.
    The maintenance plan submitted by Ohio for the Canton-Massillon 
area contains new primary PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for 
the area for the years 2015 and 2025. The motor vehicle emissions 
budgets were calculated using MOVES2010(a). After the adequacy finding 
and approval of the budgets become effective, the budgets will have to 
be used in future conformity determinations and regional emissions 
analyses prepared by the SCATS, will have to be based on the use of 
MOVES2010a or the most recent version of MOVES required to be used in 
transportation conformity determinations.\12\ The state has determined 
the 2015 MVEBs for the Canton-Massillon area to be 204.33 tpy for 
primary PM2.5 and 7,782.84 tpy for NOX. Ohio has 
determined the 2025 MVEBs for the Canton-Massillon area to be 101.50 
tpy for primary PM2.5 and 4,673.83 tpy for NOX. 
These MVEBs exceed the on-road mobile source primary PM2.5 
and NOX emissions projected by the states for 2015 and 2025. 
Ohio has decided to include ``safety margins'' as provided for in 40 
CFR 93.124(a) (described below) of 26.65 tpy and 13.24 tpy for primary 
PM2.5 and 1,015.15 tpy and 609.63 tpy for NOX in 
the 2015 and 2025 MVEBs, respectively, to provide for on-road mobile 
source growth. Ohio did not provide emission budgets for 
SO2, VOCs, and ammonia because it concluded, that emissions 
of these precursors from on-road motor vehicles are not significant 
contributors to the area's PM2.5 air quality problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA described the circumstances under which an area would 
be required to use MOVES in transportation conformity determinations 
in its March 2, 2010, Federal Register notice officially releasing 
MOVES2010 for use in SIPs and transportation conformity 
determinations. (75 FR 9413)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA issued conformity regulations to implement the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS in July 2004 and May 2005 (69 FR 40004, July 1, 
2004 and 70 FR 24280, May 6, 2005, respectively). Those actions were 
not part of the final rule recently remanded to EPA by the Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia in NRDC v. EPA, No. 08-1250 (Jan. 
4, 2013), in which the Court remanded to EPA the implementation rule 
for the PM2.5 NAAQS because it concluded that EPA must 
implement that NAAQS pursuant to the PM-specific implementation 
provisions of subpart 4 of part D of title I of the CAA, rather than 
solely under the general provisions of subpart 1. That decision does 
not affect EPA's proposed approval of the Canton-Massillon area MVEBs.
    In the Canton-Massillon area, the motor vehicle budgets including 
the safety margins and motor vehicle emission projections for both 
NOX and PM2.5 are lower than the levels in the 
attainment year.
    EPA has reviewed the submitted budgets for 2015 and 2025 including 
the added safety margins using the conformity rule's adequacy criteria 
found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and the conformity rule's requirements for 
safety margins found at 40 CFR 93.124(a). EPA has also completed a 
thorough review of the maintenance plan for the Canton-Massillon area. 
Based on the results of this review of the budgets and the maintenance 
plans, EPA is approving the 2015 and 2025 direct PM2.5 and 
NOX budgets including the requested safety margins for the 
Canton-Massillon area. Additionally, EPA, through this rulemaking, has 
found the submitted budgets to be adequate for use to determine 
transportation conformity in the Canton-Massillon area, because EPA has 
determined that the area can maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS for the relevant maintenance period with on-road mobile source 
emissions at the levels of the MVEBs including the requested safety 
margins. These budgets must be used in conformity determinations made 
on or after the effective date of this direct final rulemaking (40 CFR 
93.118(f)(iii)). Additionally, transportation conformity determinations 
made after the effective date of this notice must be based on regional 
emissions analyses using MOVES2010a or a more recent version of MOVES 
that has been approved for use in conformity determinations.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ EPA described the circumstances under which an area would 
be required to use MOVES in transportation conformity determinations 
in its March 2, 2010 Federal Register notice officially releasing 
MOVES2010 for use in SIPs and transportation conformity 
determinations. (75 FR 9413)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. What is a safety margin?
    A ``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment level 
of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions 
(from all sources) in the maintenance plan. As shown in Table 4, the 
Canton-Massillon area is projected to have safety margins for 
NOX and direct PM2.5 of 8,404.59 tpy and 344.19 
tpy in 2025 (the difference between the attainment year, 2008, 
emissions and the projected year of 2025 emissions for all sources in 
the Canton-Massillon area). The transportation conformity rule allows 
areas to allocate all or a portion of a ``safety margin'' to the area's 
motor

[[Page 48102]]

vehicle emissions budgets (40 CFR 92.124(a)). The MVEBs requested by 
Ohio contain NOX safety margins for mobile sources in 2015 
and 2025 and PM2.5 safety margins for mobile sources in 2015 
and 2025 are much smaller than the allowable safety margins reflected 
in the total emissions for the Canton-Massillon area. The state is not 
requesting allocation to the MVEBs of the entire available safety 
margins reflected in the demonstration of maintenance. Therefore, even 
though the state is requesting MVEBs that exceed the projected on-road 
mobile source emissions for 2015 and 2025 contained in the 
demonstration of maintenance, the increase in on-road mobile source 
emissions that can be considered for transportation conformity purposes 
is well within the safety margins of the overall PM2.5 
maintenance demonstration.
    Therefore, EPA believes that the requested budgets, including the 
requested portion of the safety margins, provide for a quantity of 
mobile source emissions that would be expected to maintain the 
PM2.5 standard. Once allocated to mobile sources, these 
portions of the safety margins will not be available for use by other 
sources.
c. What action is EPA taking on the submitted motor vehicle emissions 
budgets?
    EPA, through this rulemaking, has found adequate and is proposing 
to approve the MVEBs for use to determine transportation conformity in 
the Canton-Massillon area, because EPA has determined that the area can 
maintain attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the 
relevant maintenance period with mobile source emissions at the levels 
of the MVEBs including the requested safety margins. These budgets must 
be used in conformity determinations if this rulemaking goes final. (40 
CFR 93.118(f)(iii)) Additionally, the determinations must be based on 
regional emissions analyses using MOVES2010b or a more recent version 
of MOVES that has been approved for use in conformity 
determinations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA described the circumstances under which an area would 
be required to use MOVES in transportation conformity determinations 
in its March 2, 2010, Federal Register notice officially releasing 
MOVES2010 for use in SIPs and transportation conformity 
determinations. (75 FR 9413)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. 2005 and 2008 Comprehensive Emissions Inventory

    As discussed above, section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires areas to 
submit a comprehensive emissions inventory. Ohio submitted a 2005 
inventory and a 2008 base year emissions inventory that meets this 
requirement. Emissions contained in the submittals cover the general 
source categories of point sources, area sources, on-road mobile 
sources, and nonroad mobile sources. Further discussion on the 
methodology of compiling the emissions inventories can be found in 
section V.3.b above, and in the docket. Ohio's supplemental submittal 
of base year emission inventories of VOCs and ammonia are also found in 
the docket and summarized in Table 6, below.

Table 6--Summary of 2007 Base Year Emissions of Ammonia and VOCs for the
                  Canton-Massillon Area by Source Type
                                  [tpy]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Ammonia      VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................................      21.29     919.30
Area..............................................    1491.50    4825.67
Nonroad...........................................       2.66    2723.36
On-road...........................................     148.98    5199.46
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................    1666.11   13692.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All emissions discussed in Tables 2, 3, and 6 above were documented 
in the docket and the appendices of Ohio's redesignation request and 
supplemental submittals. EPA has reviewed Ohio's documentation of the 
emissions inventory techniques and data sources used for the derivation 
of the 2005, 2007, and 2008 emissions estimates, and has found that 
Ohio has thoroughly documented the derivation of these emissions 
inventories. The submittal from the state shows that the 2008 emissions 
inventory is currently the most complete emissions inventories for 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in the Canton-
Massillon area. Based upon EPA's review, we propose to find that the 
2005 and 2007/2008 emissions inventories are as complete and accurate 
as possible given the input data available to Ohio, and we are 
proposing to approve them under CAA section 172(c)(3).

7. Summary of Proposed Actions

    EPA has previously determined that the Canton-Massillon area has 
attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 
is proposing to determine that the Canton-Massillon area continues to 
attain the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard using 
the latest three years of certified, quality-assured data, and that the 
area has met the requirements for redesignation under section 
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is proposing to approve the request from 
Ohio to change the legal designation of the Canton-Massillon area from 
nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's 
PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Canton-Massillon area as a 
revision to the Ohio SIP because the plan meets the requirements of 
section 175A of the CAA. EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 and 2008 
emissions inventories for primary PM2.5, NOX, and 
SO2, documented in Ohio's April 16, 2012, submittal as 
satisfying the requirement in section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for a 
comprehensive, current emission inventory. Finally, EPA finds adequate 
and is approving 2015 and 2025 primary PM2.5 and 
NOX MVEBs for the Canton-Massillon area. These MVEBs will be 
used in future transportation conformity analyses for the area.

VI. What are the effects of EPA's proposed actions?

    If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change 
the official designation of the Canton-Massillon area for the 1997 
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 
81, from nonattainment to attainment. If EPA's proposal is finalized, 
this action would approve the maintenance plan for the 1997 annual and 
2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards for the Canton-Massillon area, 
as well as the 2005 and 2008 emissions inventories included with the 
redesignation request, as revisions to the Ohio SIP.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the 
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) 
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not 
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those 
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of 
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the 
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have 
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is 
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions 
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to 
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not

[[Page 48103]]

impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For 
that reason, these actions:
     Are not a ''significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, National Parks, 
Wilderness.

    Dated: July 24, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-18951 Filed 8-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P