Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; Redesignation of the Columbus Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual Standard for Fine Particulate Matter, 52733-52753 [2013-20651]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 165 (Monday, August 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52733-52753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20651]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0597; FRL-9900-29-Region 5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Ohio; Redesignation of the Columbus Area to Attainment of the 1997 
Annual Standard for Fine Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant, under the Clean Air Act (CAA), a 
redesignation request and approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision request submitted by the state of Ohio on June 3, 2011, and 
supplemented on April 30, 2013. The Ohio Environmental Protection 
Agency (OEPA) has requested the redesignation of the Columbus, Ohio 
(OH) area to attainment of the 1997 annual fine particulate 
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or 
standard). The Columbus, Ohio area (Columbus area) includes Coshocton, 
Delaware, Licking, Fairfield, and Franklin Counties. EPA is proposing 
to determine that the Columbus area has attained the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS and to approve the state's redesignation 
request. EPA is proposing to approve related Ohio SIP revisions, 
including the state's plan for maintaining attainment of the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Columbus area through 2023, the 
state's 2022 Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and PM2.5 
Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the Columbus area (which EPA 
is also proposing to find adequate), and 2005 NOX, Sulfur 
Dioxide (SO2), and primary PM2.5 and 2007 
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) and ammonia emission inventories for 
the Columbus area. In the context of this proposal to redesignate the 
Columbus 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, 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 annual 
PM2.5 standard.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2011-0597, 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, 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-
2011-0597. EPA's policy is that all comments

[[Page 52734]]

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 and 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 U.S. 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 Edward Doty at (312) 886-6057 
before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist, 
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6057, or 
Doty.Edward@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section is arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What actions is EPA proposing?
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?
    A. Has the Columbus area attained the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard?
    B. Has the State of Ohio met all plan requirements of the CAA 
applicable for purposes of redesignation of the Columbus area to 
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard?
    1. Ohio Has Met All Applicable Requirements for Purposes of 
Redesignation of the Columbus Area Under Section 110 and Part D of 
the CAA
    a. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
    b. Part D Requirements
    2. The Columbus Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under 
Section 110(k) of the CAA
    3. Nonattainment Requirements
    4. Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit Decision 
Regarding PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4 of the CAA
    a. Background
    b. Proposal on This Issue
    i. Applicable Requirements for Purposes of Evaluating the 
Redesignation Request
    ii. Subpart 4 Requirements and Ohio's Redesignation Request
    iii. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5 Precursors
    C. Are the PM2.5 air quality improvements in the 
Columbus area due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions?
    1. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Controls
    a. Federal Emission Control Measures
    i. Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur 
Standards
    ii. Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule
    iii. Non-Road Diesel Engine Standards
    iv. Non-Road Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreational Engine 
Standards
    b. Control Measures in Upwind Areas
    i. NOX SIP Call
    ii. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and CSAPR
    2. Emission Reductions
    a. Ohio's Demonstration That Significant Emission Reductions 
Have Occurred in the Columbus Area and in Upwind Areas
    b. VOC and Ammonia Emission Reductions
    c. Conclusions Regarding Emission Reductions Between 2005 and 
2008 in the Columbus Area
    D. Does Ohio have a fully approvable PM2.5 
maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA for the 
Columbus area?
    1. What is required in a maintenance plan?
    2. Attainment Inventory
    3. Demonstration of Maintenance
    a. State Demonstration of Maintenance
    b. CAIR and CSAPR
    i. Background--Effect of the August 21, 2012, D.C. Circuit 
Decision garding EPA's CSAPR
    ii. Maintenance Plan Precursor Evaluation Resulting From Court 
Decisions
    c. EPA's Conclusion for Ohio's Maintenance Demonstration
    4. Monitoring Network
    5. Verification of Continued Attainment
    6. Contingency Plan
    7. Provision for Future Update of the Annual PM2.5 
Maintenance Plan
    E. Has Ohio adopted acceptable MVEBs for the PM2.5 
maintenance period?
    1. How are MVEBs developed and what are the MVEBs for the 
Columbus area?
    2. What are safety margins?
    F. Are the 2005 and 2007 base year PM2.5-related 
emissions inventories for the Columbus area approvable under section 
172(c)(3) of the CAA?
    1. EPA's Base Year Emissions Inventory SIP Policy
    2. 2005 and 2007 Base Year PM2.5-Related Emission 
Inventories for the Columbus Area
VI. 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 to 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 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 in the proposed rule.

II. What actions is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to take several actions related to the 
redesignation of the Columbus area to attainment of the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to determine that the Columbus 
area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on 
quality

[[Page 52735]]

assured, certified 2008-2012 air quality data.
    EPA is proposing to find that the state of Ohio and the Columbus 
area meet requirements for redesignation of the Columbus area to 
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS under section 
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is, thus, proposing to grant Ohio's 
request for a redesignation of the Columbus area to attainment of the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's PM2.5 maintenance 
plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the Columbus area 
as a revision to the Ohio SIP, meeting the requirements of section 175A 
of the CAA. The PM2.5 maintenance plan uses projected 
emissions data for 2022, but EPA believes that the plan suffices to 
demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 
the Columbus area through 2023. The state of Ohio commits to revise 
this maintenance plan to cover an additional 10 years within 8 years 
after EPA approves the redesignation of the Columbus area to attainment 
of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's 2022 PM2.5 and 
NOX MVEBs for the Columbus area. In addition, EPA is 
proposing to find these MVEBs as adequate for purposes of 
transportation and general conformity demonstrations and 
determinations.
    Finally, EPA is proposing to approve 2005 primary PM2.5, 
NOX, and SO2 emission inventories and 2007 VOC 
and ammonia emission inventories for the Columbus area as satisfying 
the requirement of section 172(2)(3) of the CAA for a current, 
accurate, and comprehensive emission inventory.

III. What is the background for these actions?

    Fine particulate pollution can be emitted directly from a source 
(e.g., primary PM2.5, organic particles, crustal matter, and 
elemental carbon) or formed secondarily through chemical reactions in 
the atmosphere involving precursor pollutants emitted from a variety of 
sources. Sulfates are a type of secondary fine particulates formed from 
reactions involving SO2 emissions from power plants and 
industrial facilities. Nitrates, another common type of secondary 
particulate, are formed from combustion emissions of NOX 
(primarily NO and NO2) from power plants, mobile sources, 
and other combustion sources. Emitted precursors of general concern in 
the secondary formation of PM2.5 are SO2, 
NOX, VOC, ammonia, and primary PM2.5, all of 
which can react in the atmosphere with other compounds to form fine 
particulates locally (within or immediately downwind of significant 
source areas) and adding to PM2.5 levels produced through 
local primary PM2.5 emissions and transported 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors.
    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 ([mu]g/m\3\) of 
ambient air, based on a three-year average of the annual mean 
PM2.5 concentrations at each monitoring site (the site's 
PM2.5 design value for the annual standard). In the same 
rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour PM2.5 standard at a 
level of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a three-year average of the annual 
98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at each 
monitoring site.
    On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, EPA published air quality area 
designations for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard based on air 
quality data for calendar years 2001-2003. In that rulemaking, EPA 
designated the Columbus area as nonattainment for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard.
    On October 17, 2006, at 71 FR 61144, the EPA retained the annual 
PM2.5 standard at 15 [mu]g/m\3\ (2006 annual 
PM2.5 standard), but revised the 24-hour PM2.5 
standard to 35 [mu]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) 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 January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), EPA finalized a rule revising the 
annual PM2.5 standard to 12 [mu]g/m\3\ based on current 
scientific evidence regarding the protection of public health. EPA has 
not established attainment and nonattainment areas for this revised 
annual standard and is not addressing this standard in this proposal.
    Since the Columbus area is designated as nonattainment for the 1997 
annual PM2.5 standard and not for other PM2.5 
standards, today's proposed action addresses redesignation of this area 
for only this standard.
    On September 14, 2011, EPA issued a final determination that the 
Columbus area had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard by 
the applicable attainment date (76 FR 56641). This determination of 
attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard was based on 
quality-assured annual-averaged PM2.5 concentrations for 
PM2.5 monitoring sites in Franklin County for the periods of 
2007-2009 and 2008-2010. Based on our review of complete, quality-
assured, and state-certified ambient PM2.5 monitoring data 
from 2010-2012, we are proposing to determine that the Columbus, Ohio 
area continues to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On June 3, 2011, OEPA submitted a request for EPA to redesignate 
the Columbus area to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS and to approve a SIP revision containing emission inventories and 
PM2.5 maintenance plan for the area. The maintenance plan 
also includes 2022 MVEBs for the Columbus area. In a supplemental 
submission to EPA on April 30, 2013, the OEPA submitted 2007 VOC and 
ammonia emission inventories to supplement the 2005 primary 
PM2.5, SO2, and NOX emission 
inventories, included in the June 3, 2011, redesignation request, to 
meet the emission inventory requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the 
CAA.
    In this proposed rule, EPA takes into account two recent decisions 
of the D.C. Circuit. In the first of the two Court decisions, the D.C. 
Circuit, on August 21, 2012, issued its decision in EME Homer City 
Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), which vacated and 
remanded CSAPR and ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR ``pending 
. . . development of a valid replacement.'' EME Homer City Generation, 
696 F.3d at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all petitions for rehearing on 
January 24, 2013.\1\ In the second decision, on January 4, 2013, in 
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit remanded to 
EPA the ``Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 
20586, April 25, 2007) and the ``Implementation of the New Source Rule 
(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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On March 29, 2013, EPA and other parties filed petitions in 
the Supreme Court seeking certiorari of the D.C. Circuit's decision 
in EME Homer City. On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court consolidated 
the petitions and granted certiorari. The Supreme Court's decision 
to grant the petitions is not a decision on the merits but instead a 
decision to review the case on the merits. As such, it does not 
alter the current status of CAIR or CSAPR. At this time, CAIR 
remains in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment?

    The CAA sets forth the requirements for redesignating a 
nonattainment area to attainment of a NAAQS. 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

[[Page 52736]]

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 the 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?

A. Has the Columbus area attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 
standard?

    In a rulemaking published on September 14, 2011, EPA determined 
that the Columbus area had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS by the applicable attainment deadline for this area. The basis 
and effect of this determination were discussed in the notices of 
proposed (76 FR 28393, May 17, 2011) and final (76 FR 56641, September 
14, 2011) rulemaking. The determination was based on quality-assured 
air quality monitoring data for 2007-2009 showing that the area has met 
the standard. The data have been certified by Ohio.
    In this action, we are proposing to determine that the Columbus 
area continues to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based 
on the most recent three years of complete, certified and quality-
assured data, and, therefore, we are proposing to update our 
determination of attainment for the Columbus area. Under EPA's 
regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, the annual primary (human health-based) and 
secondary (environment-based) 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 [mu]g/
m\3\ at all relevant monitoring sites in the area. Under 40 CFR part 
50, appendix N 4.1, a year of PM2.5 data meets completeness 
requirements when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days 
for each quarter have valid data.
    EPA has reviewed the ambient air quality monitoring data for the 
Columbus area consistent with the requirements contained at 40 CFR part 
50. EPA's review focused on Columbus area PM2.5 data quality 
assured and certified by the state of Ohio for the period of 2007-2012 
and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS).
    The Columbus area had three PM2.5 monitoring sites with 
valid, complete annual PM2.5 data for all three-year periods 
considered here. All of these monitoring sites were located in Franklin 
County. A fourth PM2.5 monitoring site was located in 
Franklin County beginning in 2010, but has yet to monitor complete, 
certified annual mean PM2.5 concentrations for a three-year 
period. Nevertheless, data measured at this site to date support a 
finding of attainment.
    Table 1 summarizes the three-year average annual mean 
PM2.5 concentrations (design values) for the three 
PM2.5 monitoring sites located in Franklin County for the 
three-year periods of 2007-2009, 2008-2010, 2009-2011, and 2010-2012. 
These monitors recorded complete PM2.5 data in accordance 
with criteria set forth by EPA in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N. Available 
data are considered to be sufficient for comparison to the NAAQS if 
three consecutive years of data exist.

 Table 1--The Three-Year PM2.5 Design Values for the Columbus, Ohio Area Monitors With Complete, Certified PM2.5
                                          Monitoring Data for 2007-2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   PM2.5 Three-    PM2.5 Three-    PM2.5 Three-    PM2.5 Three-
                                                    year design     year design     year design     year design
             County                   Monitor       value 2007-     value 2008-     value 2009-     value 2010-
                                                   2009 ([mu]g/    2010 ([mu]g/    2011 ([mu]g/    2012 ([mu]g/
                                                       m\3\)           m\3\)           m\3\)           m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin........................     39-049-0024            13.0            12.5            12.2            11.9
Franklin........................     39-049-0025            12.9            12.2            11.9            11.6
Franklin........................     39-049-0081            11.7            11.3            11.2            11.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's review of monitoring data from the 2007-2009, 2008-2010, 
2009-2011, and 2010-2012 monitoring periods supports EPA's 
determination that the Columbus area has monitored attainment of the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for each three-year period 
considered (the most recent periods with complete, quality-assured, and 
state-certified annual PM2.5 concentrations for this area). 
Therefore, EPA proposes to determine that the Columbus area continues 
to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and EPA proposes to 
renew its determination of attainment for the Columbus area.

B. Has the State of Ohio met all requirements of the CAA applicable for 
purposes of redesignation of the Columbus area to attainment of the 
1997 annual PM2.5 standard?

    We are proposing to find that Ohio has met all currently applicable 
SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Columbus 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 approved, in accordance with 
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the CAA. As discussed below, in this 
proposed rule, EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's 2005 (primary 
PM2.5, SO2, and NOX) and 2007 (VOC and 
ammonia) emissions inventories as meeting the requirements of section 
172(c)(3) of the CAA for a comprehensive emissions inventory.
    In making these proposed findings, we have ascertained which SIP 
requirements are applicable for purposes of redesignation, and have 
concluded that there are measures in the Ohio SIP meeting these 
requirements. These measures are approved or will be approved by the 
time of final rulemaking.

[[Page 52737]]

1. Ohio Has Met All Applicable Plan Requirements for Purposes of 
Redesignation of the Columbus Area Under Section 110 and Part D of the 
CAA
a. 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: (1) Include enforceable emission limitations and other 
control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the 
requirements of the CAA; (2) provide for establishment and operation of 
appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary to 
monitor ambient air quality; (3) provide for implementation of a source 
permit program to regulate the modification and construction of a 
stationary source within areas covered by the plan; (4) include 
provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD), and part D, New Source Review (NSR), permit 
programs; (5) include criteria for stationary source emission control 
measures, monitoring and reporting; (6) include provisions for air 
quality modeling; and (7) provide for public and local agency 
participation in planning and emission control rule development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that a SIP 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 requirements 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 
we must 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-Loraine, 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. 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 Columbus area. 
Therefore, EPA believes that these SIP elements are not applicable 
requirements for purposes of review of the state's PM2.5 
redesignation request.
b. Part D Requirements
    EPA is proposing to determine that, upon approval of the base year 
emissions inventories discussed below in section V.F of this 
rulemaking, the Ohio SIP will meet the SIP requirements for the 
Columbus 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 pollutant 
nonattainment areas.
Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements
    For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the 
applicable section 172 SIP requirements for the Columbus area are 
contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9) of the CAA. A thorough discussion 
of these requirements 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 implementation of all Reasonably Available Control Measures 
(RACM) as expeditiously as practicable and to provide for attainment of 
the primary (human health-based) 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 
achieved in the Columbus area, no additional measures are needed to 
provide for attainment, and the section 172(c)(1) requirements are no 
longer considered to be applicable as long as the area continues to 
attain the standard (becoming permanently not applicable upon final 
redesignation of the area to attainment of the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard, when the area's maintenance plan will 
dictate the need for additional emission control measures) (40 CFR 
51.1004(c)).
    The Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirement under CAA 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 Columbus area has monitored attainment of the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. See ``State Implementation Plans; General 
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Amendments 
of 1990,'' 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, (General Preamble) at 57 FR 
13564. See also 40 CFR 51.918. In addition, because the Columbus area 
has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and is no longer 
subject to an RFP requirement, the requirement to submit the section 
172(c)(9) contingency measures is not applicable for purposes of 
redesignation. Id.
    Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a 
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. Ohio 
submitted a 2005 base year emissions inventory for primary 
PM2.5, SO2, and NOX emissions along 
with their redesignation request, and supplemented these emissions with 
a 2007 base year emissions inventory for VOC and ammonia emissions on 
April 30, 2013. As discussed below, in section V.F of this proposed 
rule, EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 and 2007 base year emissions 
inventories as meeting the section 172(c)(3) emission

[[Page 52738]]

inventory requirement for the Columbus 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 
in the nonattainment area. EPA approved Ohio's current NSR program on 
January 10, 2003 (68 FR 1366). Nonetheless, since PSD requirements will 
apply after redesignation, the area need not have a fully-approved NSR 
program for purposes of redesignation, provided that the area 
demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A detailed 
rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, 
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 
titled, ``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting 
Redesignation to Attainment'' (Nichols memorandum). Ohio has 
demonstrated that the Columbus area will be able to maintain the 1997 
annual PM2.5 standard without part D NSR in effect in the 
Columbus area. Therefore, the state need not have a fully approved part 
D NSR program as a condition for the approval of the state's 
redesignation request. The state's PSD program will become effective in 
the Columbus area upon redesignation of this area 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 emission 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 that Ohio's 
SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for purposes 
of redesignation.
Subpart 1 Section 176(c)(4)(D) Conformity SIP Requirements
    The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation 
plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under title 
23 of the U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act (transportation 
conformity), as well as to all other federally-supported or funded 
projects (general conformity).
    Section 176(c) of the CAA was amended by provisions contained in 
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which was signed into law on August 10, 
2005 (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 a 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 section 175A maintenance plans. 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 (December 7, 1995) 
(Tampa, Florida).
    Ohio has an approved transportation conformity SIP (72 FR 20945).
2. The Columbus Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 
110(k) of the CAA
    Upon final approval of Ohio's comprehensive 2005 and 2007 emissions 
inventories, EPA will have fully approved the Ohio SIP for the Columbus 
area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable 
for purposes of redesignation to attainment for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in 
approving a redesignation request (See page 3 of the September 4, 1992, 
John Calcagni memorandum, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to 
Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' (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 in 1970, Ohio has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully 
approved, provisions addressing various required SIP elements under the 
particulate matter standards. In this action, EPA is proposing to 
approve Ohio's 2005 and 2007 base year emissions inventories for the 
Columbus area as meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the 
CAA for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard.
3. Nonattainment Requirements
    Under section 172, states with nonattainment areas must submit 
plans providing for timely attainment and meeting a variety of other 
requirements. In 2008, Ohio submitted an attainment demonstration for 
PM2.5 for the Columbus area. However, pursuant to 40 CFR 
51.1004(c), EPA's determination that the Columbus area has attained the 
1997 annual PM2.5 standard suspends the requirement for the 
state to submit, and for the EPA to rule on, certain SIP planning 
elements related to attainment planning requirements of the CAA, 
including attainment demonstration requirements, the Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (RACT)-RACM requirements of section 
172(c)(1) of the CAA, the RFP and attainment requirements of sections 
172(c)(2) and (6) and 182(b)(1) of the CAA, and the contingency measure 
requirements 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 requirement under section 
172(c)(3) of the CAA. As discussed in section V.F of this proposed 
rule, EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 and 2007 emissions 
inventories that Ohio submitted along with its redesignation request 
and maintenance plan for the Columbus area and in its April 30, 2013, 
supplement as satisfying this emissions inventory requirement.
    No Ohio SIP provision applicable for redesignation of the Columbus 
area for the 1997 PM2.5 standard is currently disapproved, 
conditionally approved or partially approved. If EPA approves Ohio's 
Columbus area 2005 and 2007 PM2.5-based emissions 
inventories as proposed, Ohio will have a fully approved SIP for all 
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation.

[[Page 52739]]

4. Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit Decision Regarding 
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4 of the CAA
a. Background
    As discussed above, on January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources 
Defense Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the ``Final 
Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 
2007) and the ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program 
for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' 
final rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, ``1997 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule''). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 
The Court found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general implementation 
provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA, rather than to 
the particulate matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of part D of 
title I.
b. Proposal on This Issue
    In this portion of the proposed redesignation, EPA addresses the 
effect of the Court's January 4, 2013, ruling on the proposed 
redesignation. As explained below, EPA is proposing to determine that 
the Court's January 4, 2013, decision does not prevent EPA from 
redesignating the Columbus 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 Ohio's 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 
Columbus 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 Columbus 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 Columbus area redesignation. 
Under its longstanding interpretation of the CAA, EPA has interpreted 
section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold matter, that the part D 
provisions which are ``applicable'' and which must be approved in order 
for EPA to redesignate an area include only those which came due prior 
to a state's submittal of a complete redesignation request. See the 
Calcagni memorandum. See also ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to 
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum 
from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air and 
Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro memorandum); Final Redesignation 
of Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 12465-66, March 7, 1995); Final 
Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 FR 25418, 25424-27, May 12, 
2003); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding 
EPA's redesignation rulemaking applying this interpretation and 
expressly rejecting Sierra Club's view that the meaning of 
``applicable'' under the statute is ``whatever should have been in the 
plan at the time of attainment rather than whatever actually was in the 
plan and already implemented or due at the time of attainment'').\2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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 Columbus area 
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 
nonattainment 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 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 arise after the states submit their redesignation requests, 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 
redesignation requests, 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

[[Page 52740]]

redesignation requests beyond the 18 month timeframe provided by the 
CAA for this purpose.
    Second, a fundamental premise for redesignating a nonattainment 
area to attainment is that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS due 
to emission reductions from existing controls. Thus, an area, for which 
a redesignation request has been submitted, would have already attained 
the NAAQS as a result of satisfying statutory requirements that came 
due prior to the submission of the request. Absent a showing that 
unadopted and unimplemented requirements are necessary for future 
maintenance, it is reasonable to view the requirements applicable for 
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request as including only 
those SIP requirements that have already come due. These are the 
requirements that led to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, for 
redesignation approval, that a state also satisfy additional SIP 
requirements coming due after the state submits its complete 
redesignation request, and while EPA is reviewing it, would compel the 
state to do more than is necessary to attain the NAAQS, without a 
showing that the additional requirements are necessary for maintenance.
    In the context of 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 of Ohio submitted its 
redesignation request on June 3, 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),\3\ 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 
redesignation 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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's Redesignation Request
    Even if EPA were to take the view that the Court's January 4, 2013, 
decision requires that, in the context of pending redesignations, 
subpart 4 requirements were due and in effect at the time the state 
submitted its redesignation request, EPA proposes to determine that the 
Columbus area still qualifies for redesignation to attainment. As 
explained below, EPA believes that the redesignation request for the 
Columbus 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 Columbus 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 \4\ 
nonattainment areas, and, under the Court's January 4, 2013, decision 
in NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory requirements also apply to 
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has longstanding general 
guidance that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA, and which 
makes recommendations to states for meeting the statutory requirements 
for SIPs addressing nonattainment areas. See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 
micrometers in diameter or smaller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of this redesignation, in order to identify 
additional requirements which would apply under subpart 4, we are 
considering the Columbus 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 
areas as ``serious'' nonattainment areas. Accordingly, EPA believes 
that it is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the potential impacts 
of subpart 4 requirements to those that would be applicable to moderate 
nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 4 apply to 
moderate nonattainment areas and include the following: (1) An approved 
permit program for construction of new and modified major stationary 
sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); (2) an attainment demonstration 
(section 189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C)); 
and (4) quantitative milestones demonstrating RFP toward attainment by 
the applicable attainment date (section 189(c)).
    The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section 
189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit provisions 
requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM10, without adding 
to them. Consequently, EPA believes that section 189(a)(1)(A) does not 
itself impose for redesignation purposes any additional requirements 
for moderate areas beyond those contained in subpart 1.\5\ In any 
event, in the context of redesignation, EPA has long relied on the 
interpretation that a fully approved nonattainment NSR program is not 
considered an applicable requirement for redesignation, provided that 
the area can maintain the standard with a PSD program after 
redesignation. A detailed

[[Page 52741]]

rationale for this view is described in the Nichols memorandum. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 
189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this redesignation request 
is discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under 
subpart 4,\6\ when EPA evaluates a redesignation request under either 
subpart 1 and/or 4, any area that is attaining the PM2.5 
standard is viewed as having satisfied the attainment planning 
requirements for these subparts. For redesignations, EPA has, for many 
years, interpreted attainment-linked requirements as not applicable for 
areas attaining the standard. In the General Preamble, EPA stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ i.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, milestone 
requirements, and 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, 57 FR 13498, 13564. The General Preamble also 
explained that:

[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring RFP 
and attainment by the applicable date. These requirements no longer 
apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible for 
redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans . . . 
provides specific requirements for contingency measures that 
effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for 
these areas.

Id.
    EPA similarly stated in its 1992 Calcagni memorandum that, ``The 
requirements for reasonable further progress and other measures needed 
for attainment will not apply for redesignations because they only have 
meaning for areas not attaining the standard.''
    It is evident that, even if we were to consider the Court's January 
4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that attainment-related 
requirements specific to subpart 4 should be imposed retroactively \7\ 
and, thus, are now past due, those requirements do not apply to an area 
that is attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standard, for the purpose 
of evaluating a pending request to redesignate the area to attainment. 
EPA has consistently enunciated this interpretation of applicable 
requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) since the General Preamble was 
published more than twenty years ago. Courts have recognized the scope 
of EPA's authority to interpret ``applicable requirements'' in the 
redesignation context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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 PM2.5 standard. 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)].

Id. at 21, n.7. For a number of reasons, EPA believes that its proposed 
redesignation of the Columbus area is consistent with the Court's 
decision with respect to 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

[[Page 52742]]

regarding ammonia and VOC as precursors. The Court had no occasion to 
reach whether and how it was substantively necessary to regulate any 
specific precursor in a particular PM2.5 nonattainment area, 
and did not address what might be necessary for purposes of acting upon 
a redesignation request.
    However, even if EPA takes the view that the requirements of 
subpart 4 were deemed applicable at the time the state submitted the 
redesignation request, and disregards the implementation rule's 
rebuttable presumptions regarding ammonia and VOC as PM2.5 
precursors, the regulatory consequence would be to consider the need 
for regulation of all precursors from any sources in the area to 
demonstrate attainment and to apply the section 189(e) provisions to 
major stationary sources of precursors. In the case of the Columbus 
area, EPA believes that doing so is consistent with proposing 
redesignation of the area for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. The 
Columbus area has attained the 1997 PM2.5 standard without 
any specific additional controls of VOC and ammonia emissions from any 
sources in the area.
    Precursors in subpart 4 are specifically regulated under the 
provisions of section 189(e), which requires, with important 
exceptions, control requirements for major stationary sources of 
PM10 precursors.\8\ Under subpart 1 and EPA's prior 
implementation rule, all major stationary sources of PM2.5 
precursors were subject to regulation, with the exception of ammonia 
and VOC. Thus, we must address here whether additional controls of 
ammonia and VOC from major stationary sources are required under 
section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to redesignate the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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 to 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 VOC under other CAA requirements may suffice to relieve 
a state from the need to adopt precursor controls under section 189(e). 
See 57 FR 13542. EPA, in this proposal, proposes to determine that the 
SIP has met the provisions of section 189(e) with respect to ammonia 
and VOC as precursors. This proposed determination is based on our 
findings that: (1) The Columbus area contains no major stationary 
sources of ammonia, and (2) existing major stationary sources of VOC 
are adequately controlled under other provisions of the CAA regulating 
the ozone NAAQS.\9\ In the alternative, EPA proposes to determine that, 
under the express exception provisions of section 189(e), and in the 
context of the redesignation of the 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 annual PM2.5 standard in this area. See 
57 FR 13539-13542.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Columbus area has reduced VOC emissions through the 
implementation of various control programs including VOC RACT 
regulations and various on-road and non-road motor vehicle control 
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule 
provisions in 40 CFR 51.1002 were not directed at evaluation of 
PM2.5 precursors in the context of redesignation, but at SIP 
plans and control measures required to bring a nonattainment area into 
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. By contrast, 
redesignation to attainment primarily requires the area to have already 
attained due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and to 
demonstrate that controls in place can continue to maintain the 
standard. Thus, even if we regard the Court's January 4, 2013, decision 
as calling for ``presumptive regulation'' of ammonia and VOC for the 
control of PM2.5 under the attainment planning provisions of 
subpart 4, those provisions do not require additional control 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 done 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 to be regulated for attainment and control 
purposes.\10\ Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of 
subpart 4 for PM10.\11\ EPA believes that application of 
this approach to PM2.5 precursors under subpart 4 is 
reasonable. Because the Columbus area has already attained the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS with its current approach to regulation of 
PM2.5 precursors, EPA believes that it is reasonable to 
conclude in the context of this redesignation that there is no need to 
revisit the attainment control strategy with respect to the treatment 
of precursors. Even if the Court's decision is construed to impose an 
obligation, in evaluating this redesignation request, to consider 
additional precursors under subpart 4, it would not affect EPA's 
approval here of Ohio's request for redesignation of the Columbus area. 
In the context of a redesignation, the state has shown that the 
Columbus area has attained the standard. Moreover, the state has shown 
and EPA has proposed to determine that attainment in this area is due 
to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions on all precursors 
necessary to provide for continued attainment. Therefore, 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 Columbus area to attainment for the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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 imposed controls on direct PM10 and 
NOX emissions and that did not impose controls on 
SO2, VOC, or ammonia emissions).
    \11\ See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 423 F.3d 
989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, even if Ohio were required to address precursors for the 
Columbus area under subpart 4 rather than under subpart 1, as 
interpreted in EPA's remanded 1997 PM2.5 Implementation 
Rule, EPA would still conclude that the area had met all applicable 
requirements for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v).

C. Are the PM2.5 air quality improvements in the Columbus area due to 
permanent and enforceable emission reductions?

    For purposes of redesignation, section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA 
requires the state to demonstrate that the improvement in air quality 
is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting from 
the implementation of the SIP, applicable Federal air pollution control 
regulations, and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions. 
EPA

[[Page 52743]]

finds that Ohio has demonstrated that the observed PM2.5 air 
quality improvement in the Columbus area is due to permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions. In making this demonstration, Ohio has 
determined the change in primary PM2.5, NOX, and 
SO2 emissions between 2005, one of the years in which the 
Columbus area violated the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, and 
2008, one of the years in which the Columbus area attained the 1997 
annual PM2.5 standard. 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 have been 
implemented in the Columbus area and in surrounding contributing areas.
1. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Controls
    The following is a discussion of permanent and enforceable emission 
control measures that have been implemented in the Columbus area and in 
upwind areas (resulting in lower pollutant transport into the Columbus 
area).
a. Federal Emission Control Measures
    Reductions in PM2.5 precursor emissions have occurred 
statewide and in upwind areas as a result of the following Federal 
emission control measures. Most of these emission control measures will 
result in additional emission reductions in the future.
i. Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards
    These emission control requirements result in lower VOC, 
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 
time post-2009 vehicles have entirely replaced pre-2009 vehicles, the 
following vehicle NOX emission reductions will occur 
nationwide: Passenger cars (light-duty vehicles, 77 percent; light-duty 
trucks, minivans, and sport utility vehicles, 86 percent; and, larger 
sport utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks, 65 to 95 percent. VOC 
emission reductions will be approximately 12 percent for passenger 
cars, 18 percent for smaller sports utility vehicles, light trucks, and 
minivans, and 15 percent for larger sports utility vans, and heavier 
trucks. Some of the emission reductions resulting from new vehicle 
standards occurred during the 2005-2008 period. Additional emission 
reductions occurred subsequent to 2008, and will continue to occur as 
the result of this emission control throughout the maintenance period 
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. The sulfur content of gasoline is estimated 
to be reduced by up to 90 percent by the end of the implementation of 
this emission control program.
ii. Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule
    This rule, which EPA issued in July 2000, limits the sulfur content 
of diesel fuel and went into effect in 2004. A second phase of 
implementation took effect in 2007 and resulted in reduced 
PM2.5 emissions from heavy-duty highway diesel engines and 
further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15 ppm. The 
full implementation of this rule is estimated to achieve a 90 percent 
reduction in direct PM2.5 emissions (including direct 
emissions of sulfates) and a 95 percent reduction of NOX 
emissions for new engines using low sulfur diesel fuel. The reductions 
in fuel sulfur content occurred by during the 2007-2009 attainment 
period; however, additional emission reductions will continue to occur 
throughout the maintenance period as vehicles with older heavy-duty 
diesel engines are replaced by vehicles with newer diesel engines. This 
rule will also lower SO2 emissions from engines using the 
low sulfur diesel fuel, resulting in lower PM2.5 sulfate 
concentrations; however, EPA has not estimated the level of this 
emission reduction and the level of its impact on PM2.5 
concentrations.
iii. Non-Road Diesel Engine Standards
    In May 2004, EPA promulgated a rule to establish emission standards 
for large non-road diesel engines, such as those used in construction, 
agriculture, or mining operations, and to regulate the sulfur content 
in non-road diesel fuel. The engine emission standards in this rule 
were to be phased in between 2008 and 2014. This rule reduced the 
allowable sulfur content in non-road diesel fuel by over 99 percent. 
Prior to 2006, non-road diesel fuel averaged approximately 3,400 ppm in 
sulfur content. This rule limits non-road diesel fuel sulfur content to 
500 ppm by 2010. The combined engine standards and fuel sulfur content 
limits reduced NOX and PM2.5 emissions (including 
direct emissions of sulfates) from large non-road diesel engines by 
over 90 percent compared to pre-control non-road engines using the 
higher sulfur content diesel fuel. This rule achieved all of the 
reductions in fuel sulfur content by 2010. Some emission reductions 
from the new engine emission standards were realized over the 2007-2009 
attainment period, although most of the engine emission reductions will 
occur during the maintenance period as the non-road diesel engines are 
replaced with newer engines.
iv. Non-Road Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreational Engine Standards
    Although Ohio did not document this Federal emission control 
measure in its May 2011 ``Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan 
for the Columbus PM2.5 Nonattainment Area'' nor in the 
supplemental emissions submittal, Ohio could have also taken credit for 
this permanent and enforceable Federal emission control requirement.
    In November 2002, EPA promulgated emission standards for groups of 
previously unregulated non-road 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-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 starting in 2007. 
Recreational vehicle emission standards were phased in from 2006 
through 2012. Marine diesel engine standards were phased in from 2006 
through 2009.
    With full implementation of all of the non-road spark-ignition 
engine and recreational engine standards, an overall 72 percent 
reduction in VOC, 80 percent reduction in NOX and 56 percent 
reduction carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are expected by 2020. Some of 
these emission reductions had occurred by the 2008-2010 attainment 
period and additional emission reductions will occur during the 
maintenance period as the fleets turn over.
b. Control Measures in Upwind Areas
    Given the significance of sulfates and nitrates in the Columbus 
area PM2.5 air quality, the area's PM2.5 air 
quality is strongly affected by regulation of SO2 and 
NOX emissions from power plants in areas upwind of the 
Columbus area. The following discusses the emission control regulations 
impacting upwind area.
i. 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

[[Page 52744]]

reduce emissions of NOX. Affected states were required to 
comply with Phase I of the NOX SIP call beginning in 2004, 
and with Phase II beginning in 2007. NOX emission reductions 
resulting from regulations developed in response to the NOX 
SIP call area permanent and enforceable. The state of Ohio and other 
nearby, upwind states, including Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and 
Kentucky, were subject to the NOX SIP call.
ii. Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and CSAPR
    EPA proposed CAIR on January 30, 2004, at 69 FR 4566, and 
promulgated CAIR on May 12, 2005, at 70 FR 25162, and promulgated 
associated Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) on April 28, 2006, at 71 
FR 25328, in order to reduce SO2 and NOX 
emissions and improve air quality in areas across Eastern United 
States. However, on July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit vacated and 
remanded both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety. See 
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2008). EPA petitioned 
for a rehearing, and the D.C. Circuit issued an order remanding CAIR 
and the CAIR FIPs to EPA without vacatur. See North Carolina v. EPA, 
550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The D.C. Circuit, thereby, left CAIR in 
place in order to ``temporarily preserve the environmental values 
covered by CAIR'' until EPA replaced it with a rule consistent with the 
Court's opinion. Id. at 1178. The Court directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's 
flaws'' consistent with the July 11, 2008, opinion, but declined to 
impose a schedule on EPA for completing this action. Id.
    EPA recently promulgated CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011) to 
replace CAIR, which, as noted above, had been in place since 2005. See 
76 FR 59517. CSAPR required significant reductions in emissions of 
SO2 and NOX from electric generating units to 
limit the interstate transport of these pollutants and the ozone and 
fine particulate matter they form in the atmosphere. See 76 FR 70093.
    On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order addressing 
the status of CSAPR and CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous 
parties seeking a stay of CSAPR pending judicial review. In that order, 
the Court stayed CSAPR pending resolution of the petitions for review 
of that rule in EME Homer City Generation v. EPA (No. 11-1302 and 
consolidated cases). The Court also indicated that EPA was expected to 
continue to administer CAIR in the interim until judicial review of 
CSAPR as completed.
    On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate 
CSAPR. In that decision, it also ordered EPA to continue administering 
CAIR ``pending the promulgation of a valid replacement.'' EME Homer 
City Generation, 696 F.3d at 38. The D.C. Circuit denied all petitions 
for rehearing on January 24, 2013. EPA and other parties have filed 
petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. As noted above, on 
June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court consolidated the petitions and granted 
certiorari (granted review as requested by these petitions). 
Nonetheless, EPA intends to continue to act in accordance with the EME 
Homer City Generation opinion.
    In light of these unique circumstances and for the reasons 
explained below, to the extent that attainment is due to emission 
reductions associated with CAIR, EPA is proposing to determine that 
those emission reductions are sufficiently permanent and enforceable 
for purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) (and for purposes of 
assessing maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in 
the Columbus area, as discussed below, for CAA section 175A).
2. Emission Reductions
a. Ohio's Demonstration That Significant Emission Reductions Have 
Occurred in the Columbus Area and in Upwind Areas
    To demonstrate that significant emission reductions have resulted 
in attainment, Ohio EPA compared the Columbus area NOX, 
SO2, and primary PM2.5 emissions for 2005 with 
those of 2008. As noted above, the 2008 emissions represent those for a 
year in which the Columbus area was attaining the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard (2008 is the middle year of the 2007-2009 
period in which the Columbus area initially attained the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard), and 2005 represents a year in which the 
Columbus area was violating this standard.
    The derivation of the 2005 (base year) emissions is discussed in 
more detail below in section V.F of this proposed rule. The derivation 
of the 2008 (attainment year) emissions is discussed in more detail 
here.
    The 2008 emissions were based on actual source activity levels. The 
point source emissions were compiled from Ohio's annual emissions 
reports, submitted to the OEPA by individual source facilities for all 
non-Electric Generating Unit (non-EGU) sources, and EGU emissions 
projected from the 2005 EPA Air Market's acid rain database. Area 
source emissions were taken from the Ohio 2005 periodic inventory and 
were projected to 2008 using Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic 
Analysis (BEA) growth factors and some updated local information. Area 
source emissions were calculated using the most recently available 
emission calculation methodologies, and source activity data 
(population, employment by source sector, fuel use, etc.) specific to 
2008. On-road mobile source emissions were calculated using EPA's 
MOVES2010 emissions model with 2008 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and 
other vehicle data (roadway speeds, vehicle type and age distribution, 
etc.) provided by the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) and 
Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). Non-road mobile source 
emissions were generated using EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model 
(NMIM) 2002 application and source activity data projected to 2008. 
Emissions for aircraft, commercial marine vessels, and railroads were 
derived separately by contractors under the direction of the Lake 
Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO). Spatial surrogates were used 
to allocate emissions to individual counties. Biogenic emissions were 
not calculated since these emissions are assumed to remain constant 
over time (biogenic emissions are not included in the 2002, 2008, 2015, 
and 2022 emissions summarized in this proposed rule).
    The 2005 and 2008 emissions for NOX, SO2, and 
primary PM2.5 for the Columbus area are summarized in tables 
2 through 4 below. All emissions are in units of tons per year (TPY). 
All summarized emissions are documented in Ohio's May 2011 
``Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan For the Columbus Annual 
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area.''

[[Page 52745]]



         Table 2--Comparison of 2005 and 2008 NOX Emission Totals for the Columbus Area by Source Sector
                                                      [TPY]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Net change
                          Source sector                                2005            2008          2005-2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................................................       25,188.87       24,373.96         -814.91
Area Sources....................................................         5,467.2        5,534.32           67.12
On-Road Mobile Sources..........................................       53,390.61       44,825.81       -8,564.80
Off-Road Mobile Sources.........................................       14,609.69       12,728.47       -1,881.22
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................       98,656.37       87,462.56      -11,193.81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 3--Comparison of 2005 and 2008 Primary PM2.5 Emission Totals for the Columbus Area by Source Sector
                                                      [TPY]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Net change
                          Source sector                                2005            2008          2005-2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................................................        1,478.64        1,553.83           75.19
Area Sources....................................................        1,552.43        1,620.06           67.63
On-Road Mobile Sources..........................................        1,660.33        1,451.09         -209.24
Off-Road Mobile Sources.........................................        1,058.53          908.32         -150.21
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................        5,749.93         5,533.3         -216.63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


         Table 4--Comparison of 2005 and 2008 SO2 Emission Totals for the Columbus Area by Source Sector
                                                      [TPY]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Net change
                          Source sector                                2005            2008          2005-2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................................................      111,266.53       94,553.48      -16,713.05
Area Sources....................................................          566.95          563.68           -3.27
On-Road Mobile Sources..........................................          864.22          283.05         -581.17
Off-Road Mobile Sources.........................................        1,603.24          729.80         -873.44
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................      114,300.88       96,130.01      -18,170.87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 2 through 4 show that NOX, SO2, and 
primary PM2.5 emissions in the Columbus area have been 
reduced significantly between the 2005 violation year and the 2008 
attainment year.
    In addition to the local PM2.5 precursor emission 
reductions, we believe that regional NOX and SO2 
emission reductions resulting from the implementation of EPA's Acid 
Rain Program (ARP) (see 40 CFR parts 72 through 78), NOX SIP 
call, and CAIR have significantly contributed to the PM2.5 
air quality improvement in the Columbus area. To assess the change in 
regional emissions from states believed to significantly contribute to 
annual PM2.5 concentrations in the Columbus area, OEPA has 
considered the change in EGU NOX and SO2 
emissions from Ohio and surrounding states between 2008 and 2009. Table 
5 shows the reduction in NOX and SO2 emissions 
for EGUs in Ohio, the LADCO states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, 
and Wisconsin), and nationwide (these data are taken from table 9, page 
23 of OEPA's May 2011 redesignation and maintenance plan).

                                                   Table 5--Statewide EGU Emissions for 2008 and 2009
                                                                          [TPY]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                NOX                                             SO2
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Area                                                                Percent                                         Percent
                                                               2008            2009          reduction         2008            2009          reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio....................................................         235,018          96,351              59         709,444         601,101              15
LADCO States............................................         702,384         393,930              44       2,019,036       1,620,071              20
Nationwide..............................................       2,996,385       1,990,385              34       7,616,262       5,747,353              25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen in table 5, the implementation of CAIR (the primary 
additional regional emissions control implemented during the 2008-2009 
period) resulted in significant reductions in Ohio, regional, and 
nationwide NOX and SO2 emissions from EGUs, all 
of which OEPA believes contributed to attainment of the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard in the Columbus area. Since CAIR remains in 
place until EPA can replace it with an acceptable new state region-wide 
emissions control rule, we believe these emission

[[Page 52746]]

reductions to be permanent and enforceable.
    The information summarized above shows that emissions of 
PM2.5 and its most significant precursors (SO2 
and NOX) have significantly decreased between 2005 and 2009 
in the Columbus area and in states with EGU emissions significantly 
impacting the annual PM2.5 concentrations in the Columbus 
area.
b. VOC and Ammonia Emission Reductions
    For several reasons we believe that VOC emission reductions in the 
Columbus area and in upwind states have also contributed to the 
observed improvement in annual PM2.5 concentrations in the 
Columbus area. In addition, for several reasons, we also believe that 
changes in ammonia emissions have not significantly impacted the 
observed annual PM2.5 concentrations in this area.
    First, as noted elsewhere in this proposed rule in EPA's discussion 
of section 189(e) of the CAA, VOC emissions in the Columbus area have 
historically been well-controlled under SIP requirements related to 
ozone and other pollutants.\12\ Second, total ammonia emissions 
throughout the Columbus area are very low, estimated to be 6,101.37 TPY 
in 2007. See the discussion of 2007 VOC and ammonia emissions below. 
This amount of ammonia emissions appears especially small in comparison 
to the total amounts of SO2 and NOX emissions 
sources in the area in 2005. Third, as described below, available 
information shows that no PM2.5 precursor, including VOC and 
ammonia, is expected to increase over the maintenance period so as to 
interfere with or undermine the state's maintenance demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For a thorough discussion of VOC emission controls and 
estimates (2002 and 2004) and projected (2009 and 2018) VOC emission 
levels (summertime emissions) in the Columbus area, see EPA's 
proposed rule for the redesignation of the Columbus area to 
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (72 FR 32257, June 12, 
2007). We observe here that the estimated/projected summertime VOC 
emission reductions in the Columbus area also generally reflect 
reductions in annual emissions of VOC in this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Conclusions Regarding Emission Reductions Between 2005 and 2008 in 
the Columbus Area
    From the above, it is concluded that SO2, 
NOX, primary PM2.5, and VOC emissions were well 
controlled between 2005 and 2008 and that significant reductions in the 
emissions of these pollutants occurred in the Columbus area during this 
period. During the same period, emissions of ammonia are believed to 
have had minimal impact on PM2.5 concentrations in the 
Columbus area. We believe that the emission reductions of the 
significant PM2.5 precursors, including primary 
PM2.5, in the Columbus area and in upwind states are 
responsible for the observed improvement in annual PM2.5 
concentrations in the Columbus area. Based on this observation, we 
conclude that the attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 
standard in the Columbus area can be explained on the basis of 
permanent and enforceable emission reductions within the Columbus area 
and in the states regulated by CAIR and NOX SIP call 
regulations.

D. Does Ohio have a fully approvable PM2.5 maintenance plan pursuant to 
Section 175A of the CAA for the Columbus area?

    In conjunction with Ohio's request to redesignate the Columbus area 
to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, OEPA 
submitted a SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard in the Columbus area through 2022. This 
maintenance plan demonstrates that emissions in the Columbus area are 
projected to remain at or below the attainment levels throughout the 
maintenance period and provides for corrective action should the 1997 
annual standard be violated or threatened in the Columbus area during 
the maintenance period. The following summarizes the details of the 
maintenance plan and maintenance demonstration.
1. What is required in a maintenance plan?
    Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175A of the CAA require that states 
demonstrate that the areas to be redesignated will continue to meet the 
PM2.5 NAAQS for at least 10 years after EPA approves the 
redesignation of the areas to attainment of the NAAQS. Section 175A of 
the CAA sets forth the required elements of a maintenance plan. Under 
section 175A, a state must also commit to submit a revised maintenance 
plan within eight years after redesignation to provide for maintenance 
of the standard for an additional 10 years after the initial 10-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 violations of the standard.
    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 emission 
inventories; a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance of the 
standard for the 10 years of the maintenance period; a commitment to 
maintain the existing monitoring network; documentation of the factors 
and procedures to be used for verification of continued attainment of 
the standard; and, a contingency plan to prevent or correct future 
violations of the standard.
2. Attainment Inventory
    The OEPA developed NOX, SO2, and primary 
PM2.5 emission inventories for 2008, one of the years used 
to demonstrate monitored attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 
standard. These emission levels are defined to be the attainment levels 
of the emissions. The 2008 attainment levels of the emissions are 
summarized in tables 3 through 5 above and in tables 6 through 8 below.
3. Demonstration of Maintenance
a. State Demonstration of Maintenance
    Along with the redesignation request, OEPA submitted a revision of 
the Ohio PM2.5 SIP to include a demonstration of maintenance 
for the Columbus area, as required by section 175A of the CAA. This 
demonstration shows maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 
standard through 2022 by showing that current and future emissions of 
NOX, SO2, and primary PM2.5 for the 
Columbus area will remain at or below attainment year emission levels. 
A maintenance demonstration may be based on such an emissions inventory 
approach. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club v. 
EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099-53100 
(October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430-25432 (May 12, 2003).
    OEPA used emission projections for 2015 and 2022 to demonstrate 
maintenance. For primary PM2.5, SO2, and 
NOX, OEPA prepared emission estimates for the same source 
sectors used for the attainment year emission estimates. As for the 
base year and attainment year, biogenic emissions were assumed to 
remain constant, and were not considered in the maintenance 
demonstration analysis.
    As done for the 2005 and 2008 mobile source emissions, OEPA used 
EPA's MOVES2010 mobile source model and projected traffic levels and 
other related mobile source factors to estimate on-road mobile source 
emissions for the maintenance demonstration years. The on-road mobile 
source emission projections were developed assuming

[[Page 52747]]

the continued phase-in of the Federal motor vehicle emission standards. 
Total VMT and other on-road vehicle data for 2015 and 2022 were derived 
using the same modeling systems (with projected input data population, 
population distribution, etc.) used to derive the 2005 and 2008 on-road 
mobile source emissions. As with the 2005 and 2008 on-road mobile 
source emissions, EPA's MOVES2010 model was used to calculate mobile 
source emission factors. The 2015 and 2022 on-road mobile source 
emissions were used to establish MVEBs for the Columbus area. See the 
additional discussion of the MVEBs in section V.E of this proposed 
rule.
    Columbus area point and area source emissions for 2015 and 2022 
were estimated using the 2008 attainment year emissions and growth 
factors for each source category within each source sector. Emission 
growth factors were provided by LADCO.
    Tables 6 through 8 summarize the projected NOX, 
SO2, and primary PM2.5 emissions for 2008, 2015 
and 2022 by source sector in the Columbus area.

     Table 6--Comparison of 2008, 2015, and 2022 NOX Emissions by Source Sector (TPY) for the Columbus Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Net change
                  Source sector                        2008            2015            2022          2008-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................................       24,373.96       13,159.20        7,627.51      -16,746.45
Area Sources....................................        5,534.32        5,577.77        5,631.84           97.52
On-Road Mobile..................................       44,825.81       21,812.27       10,597.83      -34,227.98
Off-Road Mobile.................................       12,728.47        8,113.60        3,519.93       -9,208.54
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................................       87,462.56       48,662.84       27,377.11      -60,085.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Table 7--Comparison of 2008, 2015, and 2022 SO2 Emissions by Source Sector (TPY) for the Columbus Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Net change
                  Source sector                        2008            2015            2022          2008-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................................       94,553.48       44,636.32       23,258.56      -71,294.92
Area Sources....................................          563.68          548.39           533.8          -29.88
On-Road Mobile..................................          283.05          128.37          124.45         -158.60
Off-Road Mobile.................................          729.80          259.63          149.42         -580.38
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................................       96,130.01       45,572.71       24,066.23      -72,063.78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 8--Comparison of 2008, 2015, and 2022 Primary PM2.5 Emissions by Source Sector (TPY) for the Columbus Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Net change
                  Source sector                        2008            2015            2022          2008-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................................        1,553.83        1,647.99        1,745.63          191.80
Area Sources....................................        1,620.06        1,623.79        1,627.88            7.82
On-Road Mobile..................................        1,451.09          759.53           486.2         -964.89
Off-Road Mobile.................................          908.32          613.95          314.31         -594.01
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................................        5,533.30        4,645.26        4,174.02       -1,359.28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comparison of the 2008 and projected 2015 and 2022 emissions 
demonstrates that future NOX, SO2, and primary 
PM2.5 emissions through 2022 will remain below the 2008 
levels in the Columbus area. EPA concludes that Ohio had demonstrated 
maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in the 
Columbus area. In addition, for the reasons set forth below, EPA 
believes that Ohio's submissions, in conjunction with additional 
supporting information, further demonstrate that the Columbus area will 
continue to maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard at least 
through 2023. Thus, in anticipation that EPA will complete action on 
Ohio's redesignation request and maintenance plan in 2013, EPA proposes 
to conclude that the state's maintenance plan provides for maintenance 
for the requisite ten years after redesignation, in accordance with 
section 175A of the CAA.
    The rates of decline in emissions of primary PM2.5, 
NOX, and SO2 emissions from the attainment year, 
2008, through 2022 documented in Ohio's maintenance demonstration 
indicate that emission levels will not only significantly decline 
between 2008 and 2022, but that reductions in emissions (relative to 
2008 levels) will continue through 2023 and beyond. The projected 
average annual rates of decline are 4,292 TPY per year for 
NOX, 5,147 TPY per year for SO2, and 97 TPY per 
year for primary PM2.5. These rates of decline are 
consistent with monitored and projected air quality trends and with 
emission reductions achieved through emissions controls and regulations 
that will remain in place through 2023. Furthermore, fleet turnover in 
on-road and non-road vehicles that will continue to occur after 2022 
will provide additional significant emission reductions.
    In addition, as table 1 demonstrates, monitored PM2.5 
design value concentrations in the Columbus area are well below the 
NAAQS in the years beyond 2008. These PM2.5 design values 
are trending downward as time progresses. Based on the future 
projections of emissions in 2015 and 2022, which show significant 
emission

[[Page 52748]]

reductions in primary PM2.5, NOX, and 
SO2, it is very unlikely that monitored PM2.5 
concentrations in 2023 and beyond will show violations of the 1997 
annual PM2.5 standard. The 2010-2012 p.m.2.5 design values 
documented in table 1, coupled with the projected drops in 
PM2.5 precursor emissions, imply that there will be a 
PM2.5 attainment margin in the Columbus area sufficient to 
buffer against violations of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 
in the unlikely event that emissions rise slightly in the future 
between 2022 and 2023.
b. CAIR and CSAPR
i. Background--Effect of the August 21, 2012, D.C. Circuit Decision 
Regarding EPA's CSAPR
    EPA recently promulgated CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011) to 
replace CAIR, which has been in place since 2005. See 76 FR 59517. CAIR 
requires significant reductions in emissions of SO2 and 
NOX from EGUs to limit the interstate transport of these 
pollutants and the ozone and PM2.5 they form in the 
atmosphere. See 76 FR 70093. The D.C. Circuit initially vacated CAIR, 
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately 
remanded that rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental 
benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 
(D.C. Cir. 2008).
    CSAPR included regulatory changes to sunset (i.e., discontinue) 
CAIR and CAIR FIPs for control periods in 2012 and beyond. See 76 FR 
48322. Although the Columbus area redesignation request and Ohio's 
PM2.5 maintenance plan do not rely on emission reductions 
associated with CAIR, EPA notes that it is proposing to approve the 
redesignation request and PM2.5 maintenance plan based, in 
part, on the fact that CAIR is to remain in place until it is replaced 
by an acceptable interstate transport control rule.
    On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order addressing 
the status of CSAPR and CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous 
parties seeking a stay of CSAPR pending judicial review. In that order, 
the Court stayed CSAPR pending resolution of the petitions for review 
of that rule in EME Homer City (No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). 
The Court also indicated that EPA was expected to continue to 
administer CAIR in the interim until judicial review of CSAPR was 
completed.
    On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued the decision in EME 
Homer City to vacate and remand CSAPR and ordered EPA to continue 
administrating CAIR ``pending . . . development 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 
then filed petitions for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which 
the Supreme Court granted on June 24, 2013. Nonetheless, EPA intends to 
continue to act in accordance with the EME Homer City opinion.
    In light of these unique circumstances and for the reasons 
explained below, to the extent that attainment and maintenance is due 
to emission reductions associated with CAIR, EPA is here determining 
that those reductions are sufficiently permanent and enforceable for 
purposes of CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and 175A.
    As directed by the D.C. Circuit, CAIR remains in place and 
enforceable until EPA promulgates a valid replacement rule to 
substitute for CAIR. As noted above, the Columbus area PM2.5 
redesignation request and maintenance plan does not rely on the 
emission reductions from CAIR, but attainment of 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard in the Columbus area did result, in part, 
from the implementation of CAIR and CAIR will contribute to maintenance 
in the future. Ohio submitted a CAIR SIP, which was approved by EPA on 
February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6034). On July 15, 2009, Ohio submitted 
revisions to its CAIR SIP, which EPA approved on September 25, 2009 (74 
FR 48857). In its redesignation request, Ohio notes that in 2009 
facilities began implementing control programs to address CAIR, and 
that CAIR will provide significant reductions in NOX, 
SO2, primary PM2.5 emissions until such time as 
it is replaced by a new transport rule. CAIR was, thus, in place and 
getting emission reductions when the Columbus area was monitoring 
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard during the 
2008-2012 period.
    To the extent that Ohio is relying on CAIR to support continued 
attainment in the Columbus area, the recent directive from the D.C. 
Circuit in EME Homer City ensures that the emission reductions 
associated with CAIR will be permanent and enforceable for the 
necessary time period. EPA has been ordered by the Court to develop a 
new rule to address interstate transport to replace CSAPR and the 
opinion makes clear that after promulgating that new rule EPA must 
provide states an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs to implement 
that rule. Thus, CAIR will remain in place until EPA has promulgated a 
final rule through a notice-and-comment rulemaking process, states have 
had an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs in response to it, EPA has 
reviewed the SIPs to determine if they can be approved, and EPA has 
taken action on the SIPs, including promulgating FIPs if appropriate. 
The Court's clear instruction to EPA is that it must continue to 
administer CAIR until a valid replacement exists, and thus EPA believes 
that CAIR emission reductions may be relied upon until the necessary 
actions are taken by EPA and states to administer CAIR's replacement. 
Furthermore, the Court's instruction provides an additional backstop: 
By definition, any rule that replaces CAIR and meets the Court's 
direction would require upwind states to have SIPs that eliminate any 
significant contributions to downwind nonattainment and prevent 
interference with maintenance in downwind areas.
    Moreover, in vacating CSAPR and requiring EPA to continue 
administering CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that the consequences 
of vacating CAIR ``might be more severe now in light of the reliance 
interests accumulated over the intervening four years.'' EME Homer 
City, 696 F.3d at 38. The reliance interests accumulated include the 
interests of states that reasonably assumed they could rely on 
reductions associated with CAIR which brought certain nonattainment 
areas into attainment with the NAAQS. If EPA were prevented from 
relying on reductions associated with CAIR in redesignation actions, 
states would be forced to impose additional, redundant reductions on 
top of those achieved by CAIR. EPA believes this is precisely the type 
of irrational result the Court sought to avoid by ordering EPA to 
continue administering CAIR. For these reasons also, EPA believes it is 
appropriate to allow states to rely on CAIR, and the existing emissions 
reductions achieved by CAIR, as sufficiently permanent and enforceable 
for regulatory purposes, such as redesignations. Following promulgation 
of the replacement rule for CSAPR, EPA will review existing SIPs as 
appropriate to identify whether there are any issues that need to be 
addressed.
ii. Maintenance Plan Precursor Evaluation Resulting From Court 
Decisions
    With regard to the redesignation of the Columbus area, in 
evaluating the effect of the Court's remand of EPA's implementation 
rule, which included presumptions against consideration of VOC and 
ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, EPA in this proposal is also 
considering the impact of the decision on the

[[Page 52749]]

maintenance plan required under sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of 
the CAA. To begin with, EPA notes that the area has attained the 1997 
annual PM2.5 standard and that the state has shown that 
attainment of this standard is due to permanent and enforceable 
emission reductions, as noted above.
    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 annual 
PM2.5 standard in the Columbus 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 on documentation provided by the state and 
supporting information, EPA believes that the maintenance plan for the 
Columbus area need not include any additional emission reductions of 
VOC or ammonia in order to provide for continued maintenance of the 
standard.
    Emissions inventories used in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) 
for the 2012 p.m.2.5 NAAQS show that VOC and ammonia emissions in the 
Columbus area are projected to decrease by 19,358 TPY and 119 TPY, 
respectively, between 2007 and 2020. See table 9 below. While the RIA 
emissions inventories are only projected to 2020, there is no reason to 
believe that the projected downward trends would not continue through 
2023. Given that the Columbus area is already attaining the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard, even with the current levels of VOC and 
ammonia emissions in this area, the downward trends in VOC and ammonia 
would be consistent with continued attainment of the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard in the Columbus area. Indeed, projected 
emission reductions for PM2.5 precursors that the state has 
addressed for purposes of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 
(see tables 6 through 8 above) also indicate that the Columbus area 
should continue to attain the NAAQS following the precursor control 
strategies that the state of Ohio and other upwind states have already 
elected to pursue. Even if ammonia emissions were to increase 
unexpectedly between 2020 and 2023, the overall emissions reductions 
projected in SO2, NOX, primary PM2.5, 
and VOC (see 72 FR 32257, June 12, 2009) would be sufficient to offset 
the increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations resulting from 
the hypothetical increase in ammonia emissions. For these reasons, EPA 
believes that even a reversal of the downward trend in local emissions 
of ammonia (and VOC) would not cause monitored PM2.5 levels 
to violate the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard during the 
maintenance period.

 Table 9--Comparison of 2007 and 2020 VOC and Ammonia Emissions Totals by Source Sector (TPY) for the Columbus Area Based on RIA Emissions Estimates for
                                                                  the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                VOC                                           Ammonia
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Source sector                                                         Net change                                      Net change
                                                               2007            2020          2007-2020         2007            2020          2007-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fires...................................................           77.48           77.48             0.0            5.62            5.62             0.0
Area....................................................       20,305.24       20,643.97          338.73        4,640.75        4,853.36          212.61
Non-Road Mobile.........................................        7,574.55        4,381.79       -3,192.76           11.20           12.80             1.6
On-Road Mobile..........................................       25,006.05        8,430.70      -16,575.35          807.16          423.61         -383.55
Point...................................................        1,423.57        1,495.24           71.67          242.31          292.41            50.1
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..............................................       54,386.89       35,029.18      -19,357.71        5,707.04        5,587.80         -119.24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. EPA's Conclusion for Ohio's Maintenance Demonstration
    Based on the information summarized above, we conclude that Ohio 
has adequately demonstrated maintenance of the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard in the Columbus area for a period of ten 
years from the time that EPA may be expected to complete rulemaking on 
the state's PM2.5 redesignation request.
4. Monitoring Network
    Ohio commits to continue monitoring PM2.5 levels 
according to the EPA-approved monitoring plan during the maintenance 
period, as required to ensure maintenance of the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard. If changes are needed in the 
PM2.5 monitoring network, OEPA will work with the EPA to 
ensure the adequacy of the monitoring network.
5. Verification of Continued Attainment
    Continued attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 
in the Columbus area depends, in part, on the state's efforts toward 
tracking indicators of continued attainment during the maintenance 
period. Ohio's plan for verifying continued attainment of the standard 
in the Columbus area consists of continued ambient PM2.5 
monitoring in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 and 
continued tracking of emissions through periodic updates of the 
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions inventory for 
the Columbus area, as required by the Federal Consolidated Emission 
Reporting Rule (codified at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A).
6. Contingency Plan
    The contingency plan provisions are designed to correct, as 
expeditiously as possible, or prevent a violation of the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard that might occur after redesignation of an 
area to attainment of the standard. Section 175A of the CAA requires 
that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems 
necessary to ensure 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.
    As required by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio has adopted a 
contingency plan for the Columbus area to address possible future 
violations of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in this area. 
Under Ohio's plan, if a violation of the 1997 annual PM2.5 
standard occurs in the Columbus area or if a two-year average of the 
weighted annual mean

[[Page 52750]]

PM2.5 concentration at any monitoring site in the area 
equals or exceeds 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\, Ohio will implement an ``Action 
Level Response'' to conduct an analysis to determine if the 
unacceptable PM2.5 concentration is due to an exceptional 
event, malfunction, or noncompliance with a source permit condition or 
a rule requirement. If the air quality problem is found to not be due 
to one of these situations, OEPA and the local metropolitan planning 
organization or regional council of government will determine the 
additional emission control measures needed to assure attainment of the 
1997 annual PM2.5 standard. Ohio's candidate contingency 
control measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
     Diesel emission control strategies;
     Alternative fuel requirements, such as liquid propane and 
compressed natural gas, and diesel retrofit programs for fleet vehicle 
operations;
     Tighter PM2.5, SO2, and primary 
PM2.5 emissions offsets for new and modified major sources;
     Controls on impact crushers located at recycle scrap yards 
using wet suppression;
     Upgrade of wet suppression requirements at concrete 
manufacturing facilities; and
     Additional NOX RACT requirements statewide.

Emission control measures that can be implemented in a short time will 
be selected and will be in place within 18 months after the close of 
the calendar year that prompted the action level response. Ohio will 
also consider the timing of the action level trigger and determine if 
additional, significant new emission control regulations, not currently 
included as part of the maintenance plan, will be implemented in a 
timely manner and will negate the need for additional contingency 
measures. OEPA also notes that the following NOX, 
SO2, and primary PM2.5 source types are 
potentially subject to additional emission control requirements: (1) 
Industrial, Commercial, Institutional (ICI) boilers; (2) EGUs; (3) 
process heaters; (4) internal combustion engines; (5) combustion 
turbines; (6) sources with emissions exceeding 100 TPY; (7) fleet 
vehicles; (8) concrete manufacturers; and, (9) aggregate processing 
plants.
    OEPA commits to implement a ``Warning Level Response'' if any 
monitor records a weighted annual average PM2.5 
concentration of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ or greater in a single calendar year. 
This trigger will result in a study to determine whether this 
PM2.5 concentration indicates a trend toward higher 
PM2.5 concentrations or whether emissions are increasing, 
threatening to cause future violations of the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard. If a worsening PM2.5 
concentration trend is expected or if a future violation of the 1997 
annual PM2.5 standard is projected to occur, the control 
measures needed to reverse the trend will be selected and implemented, 
taking into consideration the economic and social impacts of the 
controls and the ease and timing of implementation. Implementation of 
the controls will take place no later than 12 months after the calendar 
year in which they are selected and adopted.
    EPA believes that Ohio's contingency plan satisfies the pertinent 
requirements of section 175A of the CAA.
7. Provision for Future Update of the Annual PM2.5 
Maintenance Plan
    As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Ohio commits to submit 
to EPA an updated maintenance plan eight years after EPA redesignates 
the Columbus area to attainment of the 1997 annual standard to cover an 
additional 10-year period beyond the initial 10-year maintenance 
period. As required by section 175A of the CAA, Ohio has also committed 
to retain and implement the emission control measures contained in the 
SIP prior to redesignation. If changes are needed in the SIP control 
measures, Ohio commits to submit these changes to EPA as requested SIP 
revisions.
    Finally, the state affirms that Ohio has the legal authority to 
implement and enforce the requirements of the maintenance plan SIP 
revision and commits to continue the enforcement of all regulations 
that relate to the emission of all PM2.5 precursors in the 
Columbus area.

E. Has Ohio adopted acceptable MVEBs for the PM2.5 maintenance period?

1. How are MVEBs developed and what are the MVEBs for the Columbus 
area?
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation plans and 
Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) must be evaluated for 
conformity with SIPs. Consequently, Ohio's PM2.5 
redesignation request and maintenance plan provide MVEBs, conformance 
with which will assure that motor vehicle emissions are at or below 
levels that can be expected to provide for attainment and maintenance 
of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. Ohio's redesignation 
request includes mobile source emission budgets for NOX and 
primary PM2.5 for 2015 and 2022. Table 10 shows the 2015 and 
2022 MVEBs and ``safety margins'' for the Columbus area. Table 10 also 
shows the estimated 2015 and 2022 mobile source emissions for the 
Columbus area. Ohio did not provide MVEBs for SO2 because it 
concluded, consistent with EPA's presumptions regarding this 
PM2.5 precursor, that emissions of this pollutant from motor 
vehicles are not significant contributors to the Columbus area's 
PM2.5 air quality problem.

                                       Table 10--2015 and 2022 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the Chicago Area
                                                                          [TPY]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Estimated emissions                Safety margin          Motor vehicle emission budgets
                          Year                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Primary PM2.5        NOX        Primary PM2.5        NOX        Primary PM2.5        NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015....................................................          759.53       21,812.27          113.93        3,271.84          873.46       25,084.11
2022....................................................          486.20       10,597.83           72.93        1,589.67          559.13       12,187.50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 6, 8, and 10 show substantial decreases in on-road mobile 
source NOX and primary PM2.5 emissions from 2008 
to 2015 and from 2008 to 2022. These emission reductions are expected 
because newer vehicles subject to more stringent emission standards are 
continually replacing older, higher emitting vehicles. EPA is proposing 
to approve the 2015 and 2022 MVEBs for the Columbus area into the SIP 
because, based on our review of the submitted PM2.5 
maintenance plan, we have determined that the maintenance plan and 
MVEBs meet EPA's criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) for determining 
that MVEBs are adequate for use in transportation conformity

[[Page 52751]]

determinations and are approvable because, when considered together 
with the submitted maintenance plan's projected emissions, provide for 
maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in the 
Columbus area.
2. What are safety margins?
    As noted in table 10, Ohio has included safety margins in the 2015 
and 2022 MVEBs. Ohio notes that EPA's transportation conformity 
regulations allow the use of safety margins in the development of MVEBs 
for maintenance plans. The safety margins selected by OEPA would 
provide for a 15 percent increase in mobile source emissions for 2022 
above projected levels of these emissions. These safety margins are 
only a fraction of the margins by which overall emissions in the area 
are expected to be below emission levels associated with air quality 
meeting the air quality standard.\13\ Thus, these added safety margins 
will not result in on-road mobile source emissions exceeding the 2008 
on-road mobile source attainment levels, and will not threaten 
exceedance of the 2008 total attainment level emissions in the Columbus 
area. Therefore, these safety margins are acceptable under EPA's 
transportation conformity requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ While EPA's conformity guidance also labels this margin as 
a safety margin, EPA here is using the term ``safety margin'' to 
denote the margin by which Ohio's MVEBs exceed projected emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Are the 2005 and 2007 base year PM2.5-related emissions inventories 
for the Columbus area approvable under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA?

    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires states to submit a 
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of emissions for 
nonattainment areas. For PM2.5 nonattainment areas, states 
have typically submitted primary PM2.5, SO2, and 
NOX emission inventories covering one of the years of a 
three-year period during which an area has monitored violation of the 
PM2.5 standard. Ohio chose to derive PM2.5 
precursor emissions for 2005 for purposes of meeting the requirements 
of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. Ohio documented these emissions and 
submitted this documentation with the redesignation request for the 
Columbus area. Ohio also submitted the 2005 base year emissions 
inventory documentation on July 18, 2008, as an accompanying document 
with the state's PM2.5 attainment demonstration for the 
Columbus area.
1. EPA's Base Year Emissions Inventory SIP Policy
    EPA's SIP policy for base year emissions inventories for the 1997 
annual PM2.5 standard are specified generally in three 
policy statements. EPA's main SIP requirements for a base year 
PM2.5-related emissions inventory are specified in section 
II.K of EPA's April 25, 2007, implementation rule for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard (72 FR 20586, 20647). This rule requires the 
base year emissions inventory to be approved by the EPA as a SIP 
element (72 FR 20647), and requires the emissions inventory to cover 
the emissions of NOX, SO2, VOC, ammonia, and 
primary PM2.5 (72 FR 20648). The coverage of 
PM2.5 precursor emissions and emissions of primary 
PM2.5 is required under 40 CFR part 51 subpart A and 40 CFR 
51.1008 (72 FR 20648). Detailed emissions inventory guidance for 
PM2.5 (and other pollutants) is contained in EPA's 
``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 
Regional Haze Regulations'' (August 2005, EPA-454/R-05-001). Finally, a 
November 18, 2002, policy memorandum titled ``2002 Base Year Emission 
Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze 
Programs'' recommends that the PM2.5-based emissions 
inventory be developed for a base year of 2002. It is noted that OEPA 
has generally followed all of these guidelines in the development of 
the base year emissions inventory for the PM2.5 SIP, with 
the exception that OEPA has chosen to develop a base year emissions 
inventory for 2005 rather than 2002. 2005 is one of the years of 
several three-year periods during which the Columbus area violated the 
1997 annual PM2.5 standard, with 2003-2005 and 2004-2006 
being violation periods. Given that 2005 is one of the years in which 
the Columbus area violated the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, 
2005 is an acceptable base year for the required emissions inventories.
2. 2005 and 2007 Base Year PM2.5-Related Emission Inventories for the 
Columbus Area
    Ohio documented the 2005 primary PM2.5, NOX, 
and SO2 emissions in a February 2008 document titled ``Ohio 
2005 Base Year PM2.5 SIP Inventory.'' This documentation 
covers the derivation of 2005 PM2.5 precursor emissions for 
the entire state of Ohio, and summarizes the derivation of emissions by 
source type and major source category. Although the February 2008 
emissions inventory documentation covers the derivation of on-road 
mobile source emissions using EPA's MOBILE6 emissions factor model, 
this derivation of on-road mobile source emissions has been supplanted 
by a subsequent recalculation of the on-road mobile source emissions 
using EPA's MOVES2010 mobile source emissions model. The revised 
calculation of the on-road mobile source emissions for the Columbus 
area is documented in a May 2011 document titled ``Central Ohio On-Road 
Mobile Emissions Estimates.'' This emissions documentation was included 
with Ohio's PM2.5 redesignation request for the Columbus 
area.
    The derived 2005 emissions totals by major source sector are 
included in Ohio's May 2011 PM2.5 redesignation request. The 
following summarizes the derivation of the emissions for the major 
source categories and the emissions totals by major source category for 
the Columbus area, as documented in OEPA's May 2011 PM2.5 
request support document.
    Emissions and source-specific data for point sources were developed 
for the 2002 emissions inventories by the OEPA. The primary sources of 
data for point sources were annual emission reports submitted by 
individual source facilities, which included detailed emissions data 
files (STARShip files). Under Ohio's emissions reporting rule, source 
facilities are required to submit emission reports every year, 
including 2005. These reports include emissions along with source 
activity levels and emission control information. The May 2011 
emissions documentation summary covers in detail the derivation of 
emissions for each source type covered as stationary point sources. The 
Columbus area point source emission totals are specified below, as 
summarized in Ohio's May 2011 PM2.5 redesignation request 
support document.
    Area source emissions were generally derived by multiplying source 
category-specific emission factors by certain indicator levels of 
source activity (source surrogates), such as county populations, 
employment estimates, and commodity sales estimates. The emission 
estimation techniques for each source category are thoroughly 
documented in the May 2011 base year emissions inventory documentation. 
In general, OEPA has followed emission estimation procedures 
recommended by the EPA. Where appropriate, OEPA has defined the 
emission estimation approaches used to convert the source category-
specific emission factors and source activity levels (derived from the 
county-specific surrogate/indicator levels, such as population, fuel 
use, employment, etc.) into county-specific emission levels. The May 
2011 emissions inventory documentation does not specify the county-
specific

[[Page 52752]]

pollutant emission levels by source type, but simply summarizes the 
source or surrogate information and emission factor information used to 
derive the area source emissions. The emissions summarized here were 
taken from OEPA's May 2011 PM2.5 redesignation request 
documentation.
    LADCO used EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) output 
files and processed these files through their emissions model 
(generally used to prepare emissions input data files for photochemical 
modeling of ozone and PM2.5) to estimate 2005 off-road 
mobile source emissions for all non-road mobile source types except: 
(1) Railroad locomotives; (2) aircraft operations (including aircraft 
auxiliary power units, landings, takeoffs, and other aircraft operating 
modes); and, (3) commercial marine vessels. LADCO supplied the area 
source emission estimates to Ohio for inclusion in the 2005 base year 
emissions inventory. The May 2011 emissions inventory documentation 
summarizes the sources of input data used to derive output emissions 
data from NMIM.
    For the three area source types not covered by NMIM, Ohio obtained 
source activity data and emissions from LADCO, who contracted with 
several consultants to derive emissions specific to areas within the 
LADCO region, including areas within Ohio.
    For the 2005 on-road mobile source emissions estimates, OEPA relied 
on modeled mobile source VMT supplied by the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning 
Commission (MORPC), and used EPA's MOVES2010 mobile source emissions 
model to calculate the emissions. MORPC used a combination of a travel 
demand modeling system (which covered much of but not all of the 
Columbus PM2.5 nonattainemnt area) and Highway Performance 
Monitoring Systems-derived (HPMS-derived) traffic data (used for 
portions of the Columbus area not covered by the travel demand 
modeling) to estimate VMT and speed data by functional roadway class. 
These data were input into MOVES2010 to derive on-road mobile source 
emissions for the Columbus area.
    Table 11 (taken from OEPA's May 2011 p.m.2.5 redesignation request 
document) gives the 2005 NOX, primary PM2.5 and 
SO2 emissions totals by major source category for the 
Columbus area.

                  Table 11--2005 Fine Particulate and Precursor Emissions for the Columbus Area
                                                      [TPY]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Soure type                                   NOX       Primary  PM2.5        SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...................................................       25,188.87        1,478.64      111,266.53
Area Sources....................................................         5,487.2        1,552.43          566.95
On-Road Mobile Sources..........................................       53,390.61        1,660.33          864.22
Off-Road Mobile Sources.........................................       14,609.69        1,058.53        1,603.24
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Totals......................................................       98,656.37        5,749.93      114,300.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, EPA's emissions inventory guidelines call for the 
documentation of all PM2.5 precursor emissions for purposes 
of meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 
1997 annual PM2.5 standard. Ohio's 2005 emissions inventory 
covers the emissions of primary PM2.5, NOX, and 
SO2, but does not cover emissions of VOC and ammonia 
(NH3), which are also PM2.5 precursors. To 
rectify this problem, OEPA emailed EPA on April 30, 2013, to supplement 
its original information on NOX, primary PM2.5, 
and SO2 emissions information with information on 2007 VOC 
and ammonia emissions for the Columbus area. Table 12 gives these 
emissions for the major source sectors.

     Table 12--2007 VOC and Ammonia Emissions for the Columbus Area
                                  [TPY]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Source sector                     Ammonia      VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources.....................................     232.67   1,212.46
Area Sources......................................   5,160.67  21,415.88
Non-Road Mobile Sources...........................      11.64   8,658.89
On-Road Mobile Sources............................     696.38  17,883.04
                                                   ---------------------
    Totals........................................   6,101.37  49,170.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We find that the state has thoroughly documented the 2005/2007 
emissions for primary PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors 
in the Columbus area. We also find that Ohio has used acceptable 
techniques and supporting information to derive these emissions. 
Therefore, we are proposing to approve Ohio's 2005/2007 base year 
emissions inventory for the Columbus area for purposes of meeting the 
emission inventory requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the 
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) 
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not 
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those 
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of 
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the 
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have 
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is 
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions 
of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to 
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 
Accordingly, these proposed actions do not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law and the CAA. For that 
reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     are certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

[[Page 52753]]

     do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     do not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     are not economically significant regulatory actions based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     are not significant regulatory actions subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because a determination of attainment is an action that affects the 
status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory 
requirements on tribes, impact any existing sources of air pollution on 
tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air 
quality standards in tribal lands.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: August 7, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-20651 Filed 8-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P