Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for the Baltimore, Maryland Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter Standard, 59703-59717 [2014-23638]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. 11. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. 12. Energy Effects This proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. 13. Technical Standards This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. 14. Environment rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of a safety zone. This proposed rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34–g of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Oct 02, 2014 Jkt 235001 59703 PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 ■ Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add § 165.T05–0834 to read as follows: ■ § 165.T05–0834 Safety Zone, Chesapeake Bay; Cape Charles, VA. (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, Captain of the Port means the Commander, Sector Hampton Roads. Representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port (b) Location. The following area is a proposed safety zone: Specified waters of the Captain of the Port Sector Hampton Roads zone, as defined in 33 CFR 3.25–10, in the Chesapeake Bay in the vicinity of Bayshore Road in the Cape Charles Bay, Cape Charles, VA all waters within a 700 foot radius of 37°– 15′–47″ N/076°–01′–29″ W (NAD 1983). (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated representatives. (2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this safety zone shall: (i) Contact on scene contracting vessels via VHF channel 13 and 16 for passage instructions. (ii) If on scene proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty officer on shore or on board a vessel that is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign. (3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads can be reached through the Sector Duty Officer at Sector Hampton Roads in Portsmouth, Virginia at telephone number (757) 668–5555. (4) The Coast Guard Representatives enforcing the safety zone can be contacted on VHF–FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65Mhz) and channel 16 (156.8 Mhz). (d) Enforcement Period: This section will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on December 31, 2014. Dated: September 16, 2014. Christopher S. Keane, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads. [FR Doc. 2014–23650 Filed 10–2–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 [EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0387; FRL–9917–40– Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for the Baltimore, Maryland Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter Standard Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the State of Maryland’s request to redesignate to attainment the Baltimore, Maryland Nonattainment Area (Baltimore Area or Area) for the 1997 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The EPA has determined that the Baltimore Area attained the standard and is proposing to determine that it continues to attain the standard. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve, as a revision to the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP), the Baltimore Area maintenance plan to show maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025 for the Area. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) mobile vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Baltimore Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA is proposing to approve for transportation conformity purposes. These actions are being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 3, 2014. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA– R03–OAR–2014–0387 by one of the following methods: A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0387, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 59704 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 0387. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, Air and Radiation Management Administration, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers, at (215) 814–2308, or by email at powers.marilyn@epa.gov. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Oct 02, 2014 Jkt 235001 Table of Contents I. Background II. EPA’s Requirements A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan III. Summary of Proposed Actions IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on Proposed Actions A. Effect of the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit Court’s Decisions on EPA’s CSAPR B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Court Decision Regarding the PM2.5 Implementation under Subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of the CAA V. EPA’s Analysis of Maryland’s SIP Submittal A. Redesignation Request B. Maintenance Plan C. Transportation Conformity VI. Proposed Actions VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background The first air quality standards for PM2.5 were established on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652). EPA promulgated an annual standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), based on a three-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard). In the same rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour standard of 65 mg/m3 based on a threeyear average of the 98th percentile of 24hour concentrations. On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944, 1014), EPA published air quality area designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In that rulemaking action, EPA designated the Baltimore Area as nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The Baltimore Area is comprised of the City of Baltimore, and Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, Howard, and Queen Anne Counties. See 40 CFR 81.321. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the annual average standard at 15 mg/m3 but revised the 24hour standard to 35 mg/m3, based again on the three-year average of the 98th percentile of the 24-hour concentrations (the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard). On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA published designations for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 standard, which became effective on December 14, 2009. In that rulemaking action, EPA designated the Baltimore Area as attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 58737 and 40 CFR 81.321. Since the Baltimore Area is designated nonattainment for the annual NAAQS promulgated in 1997, today’s proposed rulemaking action addresses the redesignation to attainment only for this standard. On May 22, 2012 (77 FR 30208), EPA determined that the Baltimore Area had PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and that the Area attained the NAAQS by the statutory attainment date of April 5, 2010. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c) and based on the determination of attainment, the requirements for the Baltimore Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIP revisions related to the attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS were suspended until such time as: (1) The Area is redesignated to attainment for the standard, at which time the requirements no longer apply or (2) EPA determines that the Area has again violated the standard, at which time such plans are required to be submitted. On December 12, 2013, the State of Maryland, through the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), formally submitted a request to redesignate the Baltimore Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Concurrently, MDE submitted a maintenance plan for the Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment throughout the Area over the next 10 years. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs used for transportation conformity purposes for the Baltimore Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. II. EPA’s Requirements A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation providing that: (1) EPA determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and, (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA. Each of these requirements are discussed in section V (EPA’s Analysis E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS of Maryland’s SIP Submittal) of this proposed rulemaking action. EPA has provided guidance on redesignation in the ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990,’’ (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) (the ‘‘General Preamble’’) and has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents: (1) ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘1992 Calcagni Memorandum’’); (2) ‘‘SIP Actions Submitted in Response to CAA Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; and, (3) ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994. B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A of the CAA, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after EPA approves the redesignation of an area to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future PM2.5 violations. The 1992 Calcagni Memorandum provides additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum states that a maintenance plan should address the following provisions: (1) An attainment emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for 10 years; (3) a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network; (4) verification of continued attainment; and, (5) a contingency plan to prevent or correct future violations of the NAAQS. Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas and for areas VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Oct 02, 2014 Jkt 235001 59705 seeking redesignation to attainment for a given NAAQS. These emission control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP and attainment demonstration SIP revisions) and maintenance plans create MVEBs based on onroad mobile source emissions for the relevant criteria pollutants and/or their precursors, where appropriate, to address pollution from onroad transportation sources. The MVEBs are the portions of the total allowable emissions that are allocated to onroad vehicle use that, together with emissions from all other sources in the area, will provide attainment, RFP, or maintenance, as applicable. The budget serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area’s planned transportation system. Under 40 CFR part 93, an MVEB for an area seeking a redesignation to attainment is established for the last year of the maintenance plan. The maintenance plan for the Baltimore Area includes 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes. The transportation conformity determination for the Area is further discussed in subsection C of section V (Transportation Conformity) of this proposed rulemaking action and in a technical support document (TSD) dated May 20, 2014, which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action. IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on Proposed Actions In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA considers the effects of three legal decisions on this redesignation. EPA first considers the effects of the D.C. Circuit Court and U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), rev’d, No. 12–1182 (S. Ct. April 29, 2014). The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit Court decision vacating and remanding the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). EPA is also considering the effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit decision remanding 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’’). Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). III. Summary of Proposed Actions EPA is proposing to take several rulemaking actions related to the redesignation of the Baltimore Area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to find that the Baltimore Area meets the requirements for redesignation for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the Baltimore Area as a revision to the Maryland SIP for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Approval of the maintenance plan is one of the CAA criteria for redesignation of the Area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The Baltimore Area maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued attainment in the Area for 10 years after redesignation. EPA is also proposing to approve the MVEBs for PM2.5 and NOX emissions for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. In this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to find that the Area continues to attain the standard. EPA previously determined that the Baltimore Area had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and that it had done so by its applicable attainment date. See 77 FR 30208, May 22, 2012. In this rulemaking action, EPA is A. Effect of the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit Court’s Decisions Regarding EPA’s CSAPR EPA has considered the recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit Court regarding EPA’s CSAPR, and has concluded that the decisions do not affect the Agency’s proposal to redesignate the Baltimore Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA promulgated CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011) to replace the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which has been in place since 2005. See 76 FR 59517. Both CSAPR and CAIR require significant reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX from electric generating units (EGUs) to limit the interstate transport of these pollutants and the ozone and fine particulate matter they form in the atmosphere. The D.C. Circuit Court initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the 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). After staying the implementation of CSAPR on December 20, 2011 and instructing EPA to continue to implement CAIR in PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 proposing to find that the Area continues to attain the standard. EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve MDE’s request to change the designation for the Baltimore Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 59706 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules the interim, on August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision to vacate CSAPR, with further instruction to continue administering CAIR ‘‘pending the promulgation of a valid replacement.’’ EME Homer City Generation L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court and remanded the matter to the D.C. Circuit Court for further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., No. 12–1182 (S. Ct. April 29, 2014). In its submission, MDE does not rely on either CAIR or CSAPR for emission reductions that contributed to the Baltimore Area’s attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, nor does the State rely on either of the rules to show maintenance of the standard in the Area for 10 years following redesignation. However, because CAIR was promulgated in 2005 and incentivized sources and states to begin achieving early emission reductions, the air quality data examined by EPA in issuing a final determination of attainment for the Baltimore Area in 2009 (November 20, 2009, 74 FR 60119) and the air quality data from the Area since 2005 necessarily reflect reductions in emissions from upwind sources as a result of CAIR. Nonetheless, in this case EPA believes that it is appropriate to redesignate the Area. Modeling conducted by EPA during the CSAPR rulemaking process, which used a baseline emissions scenario that ‘‘backed out’’ the effects of CAIR, see 76 FR at 48223, projected that the counties in the Baltimore Area would have PM2.5 annual design values 1 below the level of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard for 2012 and 2014 without taking into account emission reductions from CAIR or CSAPR. See Appendix B of EPA’s ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document,’’ (Page B– 45, B–46), which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action. In addition, the 2010–2012 quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified monitoring data for the Baltimore Area confirms that 2012 PM2.5 annual design values for each monitoring site in the Area remained well below the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and, thus, the entire Area continued to attain the standard in 2012. See Table 1 of this proposed rulemaking action for the Baltimore Area’s monitoring data for 2010–2012. 1 As defined in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section (1)(c). A monitoring site’s design value is compared to the level of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS to determine compliance with the standard. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Oct 02, 2014 Jkt 235001 The status of CSAPR is not relevant to this redesignation. CSAPR was promulgated in June 2011, and the rule was stayed by the D.C. Circuit Court just six months later, before the trading programs it created were scheduled to go into effect. Therefore, the Baltimore Area’s attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard cannot have been a result of any emission reductions associated with CSAPR. In sum, neither the current status of CAIR nor the current status of CSAPR affects any of the criteria for proposed approval of this redesignation request for the Area. B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Court Decision Regarding PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of the CAA 1. Background On January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit Court remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the ‘‘Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The D.C. Circuit Court found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA (subpart 1), rather than the particulatematter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of Part D of Title I (subpart 4). Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision, the states had worked towards meeting the air quality goals of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with EPA regulations and guidance derived from subpart 1. Subsequent to this decision, in rulemaking that responds to the D.C. Circuit Court’s remand, EPA took this history into account by proposing to set a new deadline for any remaining submissions that may be required for moderate nonattainment areas as a result of the Court’s decision regarding subpart 4. On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566) EPA finalized the ‘‘Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of SIP Provisions for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS’’ rule (the PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule). The rule identifies the classification under subpart 4 for areas currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual and/or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards, and sets a new deadline for states to submit attainment- PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 related and other SIP elements required for these areas pursuant to subpart 4. The rule also identifies EPA guidance that is currently available regarding subpart 4 requirements. The PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule specifies December 31, 2014 as the deadline for the states to submit any additional attainment-related SIPelements that may be needed to meet the applicable requirements of subpart 4 for areas currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual and/ or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and to submit SIPs addressing the nonattainment NSR requirements in subpart 4. Therefore, as explained in detail in the following section, any additional attainment-related SIP elements that may be needed for the Baltimore Area to meet the applicable requirements of subpart 4 were not due at the time that Maryland submitted its redesignation request for the Area. Maryland submitted its request for redesignating the Baltimore Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS on December 12, 2013. 2. Proposal on This Issue In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA addresses the effect of the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 ruling and the proposed PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification and Deadline Rule on the redesignation request for the Baltimore Area. EPA is proposing to determine that the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 decision does not prevent EPA from redesignating the Baltimore Area to attainment. Even in light of the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision, redesignation for the Baltimore Area is appropriate under the CAA and EPA’s longstanding interpretations of the CAA provisions regarding redesignation. EPA first explains its longstanding interpretation that requirements that are imposed, or that become due, after a complete redesignation request is submitted for an area that is attaining the standard, are not applicable for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. Second, EPA then shows that, even if EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements to the redesignation request for the Baltimore Area and disregards the provisions of its 1997 annual PM2.5 implementation rule remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court, the State’s request for redesignation of the Baltimore Area still qualifies for approval. EPA’s discussion takes into account the effect of the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling and the proposed PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule on the Baltimore Area maintenance plan, which EPA views as E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS approvable when subpart 4 requirements are considered. a. Applicable Requirements Under Subpart 4 for Purposes of Evaluating the Redesignation Request for the Baltimore Area With respect to the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 ruling rejected EPA’s reasons for implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with the provisions of subpart 1, and remanded that matter to EPA, so that it could address implementation of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4, in addition to subpart 1. For the purposes of evaluating the redesignation request for the Baltimore 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 redesignation of the Baltimore Area. 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 1992 Calcagni Memorandum. See also ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro memorandum); Final Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s redesignation rulemaking applying this interpretation and expressly rejecting Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of ‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is ‘‘whatever should have been in the plan at the time of attainment rather than whatever actually was in the plan and already implemented or due at the time of attainment’’).2 In this case, at the time 2 Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the area’s submittal of a complete VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Oct 02, 2014 Jkt 235001 that the State submitted its redesignation request, the requirements under subpart 4 were not due. EPA’s view that, for purposes of evaluating the redesignation of the Baltimore Area, the subpart 4 requirements were not due at the time Maryland submitted the redesignation request is in keeping with the EPA’s interpretation of subpart 2 requirements for subpart 1 ozone areas redesignated subsequent to the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In South Coast, the D.C. Circuit Court found that EPA was not permitted to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely under subpart 1, and held that EPA was required under the statute to implement the standard under the ozone-specific requirements of subpart 2 as well. Subsequent to the South Coast decision, in evaluating and acting upon redesignation requests for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard that were submitted to EPA for areas under subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding interpretation of the CAA that ‘‘applicable requirements,’’ for purposes of evaluating a redesignation, are those that had been due at the time the redesignation request was submitted. See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of Manitowoc County and Door County Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 22050, April 27, 2010). In those actions, EPA, therefore, did not consider subpart 2 requirements to be ‘‘applicable’’ for the purposes of evaluating whether the area should be redesignated under section 107(d)(3)(E). EPA’s interpretation derives from the provisions of section 107(d)(3). Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an area to be redesignated, a state must meet ‘‘all requirements ‘applicable’ to the area under section 110 and part D.’’ Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that the EPA must have fully approved the ‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the area seeking redesignation. These two sections read together support EPA’s interpretation of ‘‘applicable’’ as only those requirements that came due prior to submission of a complete redesignation request. First, holding states to an ongoing obligation to adopt new CAA requirements that arose after the state submitted its redesignation request, in order to be redesignated, would make it problematic or impossible for EPA to act on redesignation requests in accordance with the 18-month deadline Congress set for EPA action in section redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the CAA. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 59707 107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable requirements’’ were interpreted to be a continuing flow of requirements with no reasonable limitation, states, after submitting a redesignation request, would be forced continuously to make additional SIP submissions that in turn would require EPA to undertake further notice-and-comment rulemaking actions to act on those submissions. This would create a regime of unceasing rulemaking that would delay action on the redesignation request beyond the 18month timeframe provided by the CAA for this purpose. 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 D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA and EPA’s PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification and Deadline Rule compound the consequences of imposing requirements that come due after the redesignation request is submitted. Maryland submitted its redesignation request for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS on December 12, 2013, which is prior to the deadline by which the Baltimore Area is required to meet the applicable requirements pursuant to subpart 4. To require Maryland’s fullycompleted and pending redesignation request for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS to comply now with requirements of subpart 4 that the D.C. Circuit Court announced only in January 2013 and for which the deadline to comply has not yet come, would be to give retroactive effect to E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 59708 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules such requirements and provide the State a unique and earlier deadline for compliance solely on the basis of submitting its redesignation request for the Baltimore Area. The D.C. Circuit Court recognized the inequity of this type of retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),3 where it upheld the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling refusing to make retroactive EPA’s determination that the St. Louis area did not meet its attainment deadline. In that case, petitioners urged the D.C. Circuit Court to make EPA’s nonattainment determination effective as of the date that the statute required, rather than the later date on which EPA actually made the determination. The D.C. Circuit Court rejected this view, stating that applying it ‘‘would likely impose large costs on States, which would face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution prevention plans . . . even though they were not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable to penalize the States by rejecting their redesignation request for an area that is already attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard and that met all applicable requirements known to be in effect at the time of the requests. For EPA now to reject the redesignation request solely because the States did not expressly address subpart 4 requirements which have not yet come due, would inflict the same unfairness condemned by the D.C. Circuit Court in Sierra Club v. Whitman. b. Subpart 4 Requirements and Maryland Redesignation Request rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Even if EPA were to take the view that the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 decision requires that, in the context of pending redesignations for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, subpart 4 requirements were due and in effect at the time Maryland submitted its redesignation request, EPA proposes to determine that the Baltimore Area still qualifies for redesignation to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. As explained subsequently, EPA believes that the redesignation request for the Baltimore 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. 3 Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and distinguished in a recent D.C. Circuit Court decision that addressed retroactivity in a quite different context, where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to give its regulations retroactive effect. National Petrochemical and Refiners Ass’n v. EPA. 630 F.3d 145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing denied 643 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 571 (2011). VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Oct 02, 2014 Jkt 235001 With respect to evaluating the relevant substantive requirements of subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating the Baltimore Area, EPA notes that subpart 4 incorporates components of subpart 1, 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 coarse particulate matter (PM10) 4 nonattainment areas, and under the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory requirements also apply for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has longstanding general guidance that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA, making recommendations to states for meeting the statutory requirements for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See the General Preamble. In the General Preamble, EPA discussed the relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and pointed out that subpart 1 requirements were to an extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally related to, the more specific PM10 requirements’’ (57 FR 13538, April 16, 1992). The subpart 1 requirements include, among other things, provisions for attainment demonstrations, RACM, RFP, emissions inventories, and contingency measures. For the purposes of this redesignation request, in order to identify any additional requirements which would apply under subpart 4, consistent with EPA’s June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification and Deadline Rule, EPA is considering the Baltimore Area to be a ‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5 nonattainment area. As EPA explained in its June 2, 2014 rule, section 188 of the CAA provides that all areas designated nonattainment areas under subpart 4 are initially classified by operation of law as ‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment areas, and will remain moderate nonattainment areas unless and until EPA reclassifies the area as a ‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area. Accordingly, EPA believes that it is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the potential impact of subpart 4 requirements to those that would be applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 4 apply to moderate nonattainment areas and include the following: (1) An approved permit program for construction of new and modified major stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); (2) an attainment demonstration (section 189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) 4 PM 10 refers to particulates nominally 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 the area can maintain the standard with a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program after redesignation. A detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.’’ See also rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 1996). With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under subpart 4,6 when EPA evaluates a redesignation request under either subpart 1 or 4, any area that is attaining the PM2.5 standards is viewed as having satisfied the attainment planning requirements for these subparts. For redesignations, EPA has for many years interpreted attainment-linked requirements as not applicable for areas attaining the standard. In the General Preamble, EPA stated that: ‘‘The requirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request for redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality data for the area must show that the area has already attained. Showing that the State will make RFP towards attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that point.’’ The General Preamble also explained that: ‘‘The section 172(c)(9) requirements are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable 5 The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this redesignation request is discussed in this rulemaking action. 6 i.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, milestone requirements, contingency measures. E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules date. These requirements no longer apply when an area has attained the standard and is eligible for redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance plans . . . provides specific requirements for contingency measures that effectively supersede the requirements of section 172(c)(9) for these areas.’’ Id. EPA similarly stated in its 1992 Calcagni Memorandum that: ‘‘The requirements for reasonable further progress and other measures needed for attainment will not apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not attaining the standard.’’ It is evident that even if we were to consider the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that attainment-related requirements specific to subpart 4 should be imposed retroactively 7 or prior to December 31, 2014 and, thus, were due prior to the State’s redesignation request, those requirements do not apply to an area that is attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, for the purpose of evaluating a pending request to redesignate the area to attainment. EPA has consistently enunciated this interpretation of applicable requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) since the General Preamble was published more than twenty years ago. Courts have recognized the scope of EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable requirements’’ in the redesignation context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). Moreover, even outside the context of redesignations, EPA has viewed the obligations to submit attainment-related SIP planning requirements of subpart 4 as inapplicable for areas that EPA determines are attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 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 7 As EPA has explained previously, we do not believe that the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 decision should be interpreted so as to impose these requirements on the states retroactively. Sierra Club v. Whitman, supra. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Oct 02, 2014 Jkt 235001 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 Baltimore Area has attained and continues to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Under its longstanding interpretation, EPA is proposing to determine here that the Baltimore Area meets the attainment-related plan requirements of subparts 1 and 4 for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 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 this redesignation request. c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5 Precursors The D.C. Circuit Court in NRDC v. EPA remanded to EPA the two rules at issue in the case with instructions to EPA to re-promulgate them consistent with the requirements of subpart 4. EPA in this section addresses the D.C. Circuit 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, section 189(e) of the CAA specifically provides that control requirements for major stationary sources of direct PM10 shall also apply to PM10 precursors from those sources, except where EPA determines that major stationary sources of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the standard in the area.’’ EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court, contained rebuttable presumptions concerning certain PM2.5 precursors applicable to attainment plans and control measures related to those plans. Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA provided, among other things, that a state was ‘‘not required to address VOC [and 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 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 59709 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 D.C. Circuit Court in its January 4, 2013 decision made reference to both section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51. 1002, and stated that: ‘‘In light of our disposition, we need not address the petitioners’ challenge to the presumptions in [40 CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5 precursors, as subpart 4 expressly governs precursor presumptions.’’ NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10. Elsewhere in the D.C. Circuit Court’s opinion, however, the D.C. Circuit Court observed: ‘‘Ammonia is a precursor to fine particulate matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5 and PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area governed by subpart 4, a precursor is presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 7513a(e) [section 189(e)].’’ Id. at 21, n.7. For a number of reasons, EPA believes that its proposed redesignation of the Baltimore Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS is consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision on this aspect of subpart 4. While the D.C. Circuit Court, citing section 189(e), stated that ‘‘for a PM10 area governed by subpart 4, a precursor is ‘presumptively regulated,’ ’’ the D.C. Circuit Court expressly declined to decide the specific challenge to EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule provisions regarding ammonia and VOC as precursors. The D.C. Circuit Court had no occasion to reach whether and how it was substantively necessary to regulate any specific precursor in a particular PM2.5 nonattainment area, and did not address what might be necessary for purposes of acting upon a redesignation request. However, even if EPA takes the view that the requirements of subpart 4 were deemed applicable at the time the State submitted the redesignation request, and disregards the 1997 PM2.5 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 Baltimore Area, EPA believes that doing so is consistent with proposing redesignation of the Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. The Baltimore Area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard without any specific additional controls of VOC and E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 59710 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 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, EPA 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 Baltimore Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained subsequently, EPA does not believe that any additional controls of ammonia and VOC are required in the context of this redesignation. In the General Preamble, EPA discusses its approach to implementing section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538–13542. With regard to precursor regulation under section 189(e), the General Preamble explicitly stated that control of 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 rulemaking action proposes to determine that Maryland’s 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 Baltimore 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 Baltimore 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 the Area. See 57 FR 13539–42. 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 adopt those measures that are deemed reasonably available. 9 The Baltimore Area has reduced VOC emissions through the implementation of various control programs including VOC Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) regulations and various onroad and nonroad motor vehicle control programs. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Oct 02, 2014 Jkt 235001 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 for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. By contrast, redesignation to attainment primarily requires the nonattainment area to have already attained due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and to demonstrate that controls in place can continue to maintain the standard. Thus, even if we regard the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 decision as calling for ‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of ammonia and VOC for PM2.5 under the attainment planning provisions of subpart 4, those provisions in and of themselves do not require additional controls of these precursors for an area that already qualifies for redesignation. Nor does EPA believe that requiring the State to address precursors differently than it has already, would result in a substantively different outcome. Although, as EPA has emphasized, its consideration here of precursor requirements under subpart 4 is in the context of a redesignation to attainment, EPA’s existing interpretation of subpart 4 requirements with respect to precursors in attainment plans for PM10 contemplates that states may develop attainment plans that regulate only those precursors that are necessary for purposes of attainment in the area in question, i.e., states may determine that only certain precursors need be regulated for attainment and control purposes.10 Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of subpart 4 for PM10.11 EPA believes that application of this approach to PM2.5 precursors under subpart 4 is reasonable. Because the Baltimore Area has already attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS with its current approach to regulation of PM2.5 precursors, EPA believes that it is reasonable to conclude in the context of this redesignation that there is no need to revisit the attainment control strategy with respect to the treatment of precursors. Even if the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision is construed to impose an obligation, in evaluating this redesignation request, to consider 10 See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for California—San Joaquin Valley PM10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual PM10 Standards,’’ (69 FR 30006, May 26, 2004) (approving a PM10 attainment plan that impose controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and did not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or ammonia emissions). 11 See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005). PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 additional precursors under subpart 4, it would not affect EPA’s approval here of the State’s request for redesignation of the Baltimore Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In the context of a redesignation, the State has shown that the Baltimore Area has attained the standard. Moreover, the State has shown and EPA is proposing to determine that attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Baltimore Area is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions on all precursors necessary to provide for continued attainment of the standard (see section V.A.3 of this rulemaking notice). It follows logically that no further control of additional precursors is necessary. Accordingly, EPA does not view the January 4, 2013 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court as precluding redesignation of the Baltimore Area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. In summary, even if, prior to the date of the redesignation request submittal, the State was required to address precursors for the Baltimore 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 Baltimore Area had met all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v). V. EPA’s Analysis of Maryland’s SIP Submittal EPA is proposing several rulemaking actions for the Baltimore Area: (1) To redesignate the Area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) to approve into the Maryland SIP the associated maintenance plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; and, (3) to approve the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Baltimore Area for transportation conformity purposes. EPA’s proposed approval of the redesignation request and maintenance plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS is based upon EPA’s determination that the Area continues to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and that all other redesignation criteria have been met for the Baltimore Area. The following is a description of how the December 12, 2013 Maryland submittal satisfies the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. A. Redesignation Request 1. Attainment EPA has previously determined that the Baltimore Area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. As noted earlier, on May 22, 2012 (77 FR 30208), EPA determined that the Baltimore Area E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 59711 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, based on 2007–2009 and 2008–2010 quality-assured, qualitycontrolled, and certified ambient air quality monitoring data. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.2004(c), this ‘‘clean data’’ determination for the Area suspended the requirements for the State to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to the attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS until the Area is redesignated to attainment for the standard or EPA determines that the Area has again violated the standard, at which time such plans are required to be submitted. EPA also determined in the May 22, 2012 rulemaking, that the Baltimore Area had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its statutory attainment date of April 5, 2010. The basis and effect of the determination of attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS was discussed in the proposed (76 FR 72374, November 23, 2011) and final rulemaking notice (77 FR 30208, May 22, 2012). Maryland’s redesignation request submittal included the historic monitoring data for the annual PM2.5 monitoring sites in the Baltimore Area. The historic monitoring data shows that the Baltimore Area has attained and continues to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. MDE assures that all PM2.5 monitoring data for the Baltimore Area has been quality-assured, qualitycontrolled, and certified by the State in accordance with 40 CFR 58.10. Furthermore, EPA has thoroughly reviewed the most recent ambient air quality monitoring data for PM2.5 in the Area, as submitted by the State and recorded in EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS). The PM2.5 quality-assured, quality-controlled, and state-certified 2009–2012 air quality data shows that the Baltimore Area continues to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The Area’s PM2.5 annual design values for the 2009–2011, and 2010–2012 monitoring periods as well as preliminary data for 2013 are provided in Table 1. TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUES IN THE BALTIMORE AREA FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS Monitor ID Annual design value (in μg/m3) Monitor location 2009–2011 24–003–1003 24–005–1007 24–005–3001 24–025–1001 24–510–0006 24–510–0007 24–510–0008 24–510–0040 .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... Glen Burnie, Anne Arundel County ........................................ Padonia, Baltimore County .................................................... Essex, Baltimore County ........................................................ Edgewood, Harford County .................................................... Baltimore City ......................................................................... Baltimore City ......................................................................... Baltimore City ......................................................................... Baltimore City ......................................................................... The Baltimore Area’s recent monitoring data supports EPA’s previous determinations that the Area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, as discussed subsequently with respect to the Baltimore Area’s maintenance plan, the State has committed to continue monitoring ambient PM2.5 concentrations in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Thus, EPA is proposing to determine that the Baltimore Area continues to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 2. The State Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Subpart 1 of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA In accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA, the SIP revisions for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the Baltimore Area must be fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA and all the requirements applicable to the Baltimore Area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements) and part D of Title I of the CAA (SIP requirements for nonattainment areas) must be met. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Oct 02, 2014 Jkt 235001 a. Section 110 General SIP Requirements Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations. The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing; (2) provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; (3) implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the implementation of Part C requirements (PSD); (4) provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements for NSR permit programs; (5) provisions for air pollution modeling; and, (6) provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development. Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain certain PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 10.9 10.1 11.1 9.8 10.0 10.2 10.9 11.3 2010–2012 10.7 9.6 11.0 10.3 10.0 9.9 10.4 11.1 2011–2013 10.0 9.0 10.3 10.3 9.9 9.3 9.9 10.5 measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the interstate transport of air pollutants in accordance with the NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998), amendments to the NOX SIP Call (64 FR 26298, May 14, 1999 and 65 FR 11222, March 2, 2000), and CAIR (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005). However, section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area’s designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area’s designation and classifications 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, EPA does not believe that these requirements are applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110(a)(2) elements of the CAA which are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area’s attainment E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 59712 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The Baltimore Area will still be subject to these requirements after it is redesignated. EPA concludes that section 110(a)(2) of the CAA and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area’s designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request, and that section 110(a)(2) elements of the CAA not linked to the area’s nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. This approach is consistent with EPA’s existing policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000) and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania redesignation (66 FR 53099, October 19, 2001). EPA has reviewed the Maryland SIP and has concluded that it meets the general SIP requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA to the extent they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA has previously approved provisions of Maryland’s SIP addressing section 110(a)(2) requirements, including provisions addressing PM2.5. See 76 FR 72624, November 25, 2011. These requirements are, however, statewide requirements that are not linked to the PM2.5 nonattainment status of the Baltimore Area. Therefore, EPA believes that these SIP elements are not applicable requirements for purposes of review of Maryland’s PM2.5 redesignation request. rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS b. Subpart 1 Requirements Subpart 1 sets forth the basic nonattainment plan requirements applicable to PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Under section 172 of the CAA, states with nonattainment areas must submit plans providing for timely attainment and meet a variety of other requirements. The General Preamble for Implementation of Title I discusses the evaluation of these requirements in the context of EPA’s consideration of a redesignation request. The General Preamble sets forth EPA’s view of applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation requests when an area is attaining the standard. See 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Oct 02, 2014 Jkt 235001 As noted previously, EPA has determined that the Baltimore Area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.2004(c), the requirement for Maryland to submit, for the Baltimore Area, an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, an RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to the attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS are suspended until the Area is redesignated to attainment for the standard, or EPA determines that the Area again violated the standard, at which time such plans are required to be submitted. Since the Baltimore Area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and continues to attain the standard, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment. Therefore, the requirements of sections 172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), 172(c)(6), and 172(c)(9) of the CAA are no longer considered to be applicable for purposes of redesignation of the Baltimore Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement under section 172(c)(3) was not suspended by EPA’s clean data determination for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and is the only remaining requirement under section 172 of the CAA to be considered for purposes of redesignation of the Baltimore Area. Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. On December 10, 2012 (77 FR 73313), EPA approved a 2002 emissions inventory for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the Baltimore Area. The emissions inventory, submitted by Maryland on June 8, 2008 along with the Baltimore Area attainment plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, was submitted to meet the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. The 2002 comprehensive emissions inventory for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard submitted by the State included emissions estimates that cover the general source categories of point sources, area sources, onroad mobile sources, and nonroad mobile sources for the Baltimore Area. The pollutants that comprise the State’s 2002 emissions inventory for the Baltimore Area are PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC, and ammonia (NH3). An evaluation of the 2002 comprehensive emissions inventory for the Baltimore Area is provided in the TSD prepared by EPA for that separate rulemaking action. See Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0143. Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires the identification and quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in an area, and section 172(c)(5) of the CAA PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA has determined that, since the PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a nonattainment NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994 entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.’’ Maryland’s PSD program for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS will become effective in the Baltimore Area upon redesignation to attainment. See (77 FR 45949, August 2, 2012) (approving revisions to Maryland’s PSD program). Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires the SIP to meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. As noted previously, EPA believes the Maryland SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA that are applicable for purposes of redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the area ‘‘for at least 10 years after the redesignation.’’ In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Baltimore Area to attainment status, Maryland submitted a SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Baltimore Area through 2025, which is at least 10 years after redesignation. Maryland is requesting that EPA approve this SIP revision as meeting the requirement of section 175A of the CAA. Once approved, the Baltimore Area maintenance plan will ensure that the SIP for Maryland meets the requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the Area. EPA’s analysis of the maintenance plan is provided in section V.B (Maintenance Plan) of this document. Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 of the United States Code E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability which EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA. EPA interprets the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) of the CAA because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding this interpretation). See also (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995) (discussing Tampa, Florida). Thus, for purposes of redesignating the Baltimore Area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA determines that the Area has meet all applicable SIP requirements under part D of Title I of the CAA. c. Maryland Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA EPA has fully approved all applicable requirements of the Maryland SIP for the Baltimore Area for purposes of redesignaton to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with section 110(k) of the CAA. 3. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA requires 59713 EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions. Maryland’s redesignation request indicates that a variety of federal vehicle control programs have created emission reductions that contributed to attainment in 2007. In making this demonstration, Maryland has calculated the change in emissions for the on-road sector between 2002, one of the years used to designate the Area as nonattainment, and 2007, one of the years the Area monitored attainment, as shown in Table 2. TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF 2002 NONATTAINMENT YEAR AND 2007 ATTAINMENT YEAR REDUCTIONS FOR ON ROAD EMISSIONS IN THE BALTIMORE AREA (TPY) 2002 2007 SO2 .............................................................................................................................................. NOX .............................................................................................................................................. PM2.5 ............................................................................................................................................ VOC ............................................................................................................................................. NH3 .............................................................................................................................................. 2,025.51 76,060.01 2,344.86 28,060.25 1,402.09 385.34 49,140.12 1,789.28 19,998.51 91.77 1,640.17 26,219.89 555.52 8,061.74 1,310. 32 Total ...................................................................................................................................... 109,892.72 71,405.02 37,787.64 The reduction in emissions and the corresponding improvement in air quality from 2002 to 2007 in the Baltimore Area can be attributed to a number of regulatory control measures that have been implemented in the Baltimore Area and contributing areas in recent years. An evaluation of the State’s 2002 comprehensive emissions inventory for the Baltimore Area is provided in the TSD prepared by EPA for the December 7, 2012 rulemaking action approving the base year inventory. See Docket ID No. EPA–R03– OAR–2010–0143. An evaluation of the 2007 emissions inventory is provided in EPA’s emissions inventory TSD dated July 23, 2014, which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action. rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS a. Federal Measures Implemented Reductions in PM2.5 precursor emissions have occurred statewide and in upwind states as a result of Federal emission control measures, with additional emission reductions expected to occur in the future. The Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards (Tier 2 Standards) have resulted in lower NOX and SO2 emissions from all new VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Oct 02, 2014 Jkt 235001 passenger vehicles, including sport utility vehicles, minivans, vans, and pick-up trucks. The Federal rules were phased in between 2004 and 2009. EPA has estimated that, after phasing in the new requirements, new vehicles emit less NOX in the following percentages: Passenger cars (light duty vehicles)—77 percent; light duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility vehicles—86 percent; and larger sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks—69–95 percent. EPA expects fleet wide average emissions to decline by similar percentages as new vehicles replace older vehicles. The Tier 2 standards also reduced the sulfur content of gasoline to 30 parts per million (ppm) beginning in January 2006, which reflects up to a 90 percent reduction in sulfur content. EPA issued the Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule in July 2000. This rule includes standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel, which went into effect in 2004. A second phase took effect in 2007 which reduced PM2.5 emissions from heavy-duty highway engines and further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15 ppm. The total program is estimated to achieve a 90 percent reduction in direct PM2.5 emissions and a 95 percent PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Decrease reduction in NOX emissions for these new engines using low sulfur diesel, compared to existing engines using higher sulfur diesel fuel. The reduction in fuel sulfur content also yielded an immediate reduction in particulate sulfate emissions from all diesel vehicles. On June 29, 2004 (69 FR 38958), EPA promulgated the Nonroad Diesel Rule for large nonroad diesel engines, such as those used in construction, agriculture, and mining, to be phased in between 2008 and 2014. The rule phased in requirements for reducing the sulfur content of diesel used in nonroad diesel engines. The reduction in sulfur content prevents damage to the more advanced emission control systems needed to meet the engine standards. It will also reduce fine particulate emissions from diesel engines. The rule also reduces the sulfur content in nonroad diesel fuel by over 99%. Prior to 2006, nonroad diesel fuel averaged approximately 3,400 ppm sulfur. Starting in 2007, this rule limited nonroad diesel sulfur content to 500 ppm, with a further reduction to 15 ppm in 2010. The combined engine standards and the sulfur in fuel reductions will reduce NOX and PM emissions from large nonroad engines by over 90%, E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 59714 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules compared to current nonroad engines using higher sulfur content diesel. In November 2002, EPA promulgated emission standards for groups of previously unregulated nonroad engines. These engines include large spark-ignition engines such as those used in forklifts, airport ground service equipment, and farm and construction 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 sparkignition engines were implemented in two tiers, with Tier 1 starting in 2004 and Tier 2 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 the entire nonroad spark-ignition engine and recreational engine standards, an 80% reduction in NOX is expected by 2020. rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS B. Maintenance Plan On December 12, 2013, MDE submitted a maintenance plan for the Baltimore Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to section 175A of the CAA. EPA’s analysis for proposing approval of the maintenance plan is provided in this section. 1. Attainment Emissions Inventory Section 172(c)(3) requires states to submit a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources in the nonattainment area. For a maintenance plan, states are required to submit an inventory to identify the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to attain the NAAQS, referred to as the attainment inventory (or the maintenance plan base year inventory), and which should be based on actual emissions. MDE submitted an attainment inventory for 2007, one of the years in the period during which the Baltimore Area monitored attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. The attainment inventory is comprised of NOX, PM2.5, SO2, VOC, and NH3 emissions from point sources, nonpoint sources, onroad mobile sources, and nonroad mobile sources. For the 2007 emissions inventory for point, nonpoint, and nonroad source categories, MDE submitted the 2007 Version 3 emissions inventory developed through the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) regional planning process. Details related to the development of the 2007 emissions inventory can be found in the January 23, 2012 MARAMA TSD VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Oct 02, 2014 Jkt 235001 entitled ‘‘Technical Support Document for the Development of the 2007 Emissions Inventory for the Regional Air Quality Modeling in the Northeast/ Mid-Atlantic Region Version 3.3’’, which may be found in Appendix D of the State’s submittal, and is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action. The 2007 point source inventory includes emissions from EGUs and nonEGU sources as developed by MARAMA in consultation with MDE. The nonpoint source emissions inventory for 2007 was developed using 2007 specific activity data along with EPA emission factors and the most recently available emission calculation methodologies. The 2007 nonroad mobile source emissions was generated using EPA’s National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) 2008, which used the NONROAD 2008a emissions model. Since marine, air and rail/locomotive (MAR) emissions are not part of the NONROAD model, they were calculated separately outside of the NONROAD model using the most recent methodologies and inputs. The 2007 onroad mobile source inventory was developed by using EPA’s highway mobile source emissions model MOVES2010a. A mix of default and local data was used to develop the inventory. The 2007 onroad emissions inventory, including a summary of the methodology and data assumptions used for the analysis may be found in Appendix F of the State’s submittal, which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action. EPA has reviewed the documentation provided by MDE and found the emissions inventory to be approvable. For more information on the 2007 inventory submitted by MDE and EPA’s analysis of the inventory, see Appendix A of the State’s submittal and EPA’s emissions inventory TSD dated July 23, 2014, both of which are available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action. 2. Maintenance Demonstration Section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the area ‘‘for at least 10 years after the redesignation.’’ EPA has interpreted this as a showing of maintenance ‘‘for a period of ten years following redesignation.’’ Where the emissions inventory method of showing maintenance is used, its purpose is to show that emissions during the maintenance period will not increase over the attainment year inventory. See PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 1992 Calcagni Memorandum, pages 9– 10. For a demonstration of maintenance, emissions inventories are required to be projected to future dates to assess the influence of future growth and controls; however, the maintenance demonstration need not be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See also 66 FR 53099–53100; 68 FR 25430–32. The measures described in subsection A.3 of section V (Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions) of this proposed rulemaking action achieved the reduction in emissions from point, area, and mobile sources in the Area that led to attainment in 2007, and will continue through 2025. In addition, some of the nonroad and on-road measures that helped the Area attain the standard in 2007 have requirements which became applicable after 2007, and will help maintain the standard during the 10 year maintenance period. In addition to the measures described in subsection A.3 of section V, Maryland’s Healthy Air Act (HAA) regulation will help to ensure the continuing decline of SO2 and NOX emissions in the Area during the maintenance period and beyond. Maryland’s HAA regulation requires emission reductions of NOX and SO2 from large coal-fired power plants in Maryland, and will limit emissions from the Brandon Shores, Herbert A. Wagner, and C.P. Crane Generating Stations, all of which are located in the Baltimore Area. See 73 FR 51599, September 4, 2008 (approving Maryland’s HAA regulation into the Maryland SIP). The HAA was phased in starting in 2009 with a second phase that started in 2012. At full implementation, the HAA will reduce NOX and SO2 emissions from affected units by 65 percent and 80 percent, respectively, from 2002 levels. To show that the Baltimore Area will remain in attainment, MDE uses projection inventories derived by applying appropriate growth and control factors to the 2007 attainment year emissions inventory. MDE developed projection inventories for an interim year of 2017 and a maintenance plan end year of 2025 to show that future emissions of SO2, NOX, PM2.5, VOC, and NH3, will remain at or below the 2007 emissions levels throughout the Baltimore Area through the year 2025. For EGU emissions, the Department of Energy 2011 Annual Energy Outlook growth factors, delineated by region and fuel, were used to develop the projected EGU emissions. Non-EGU emissions were developed using employment projections and other state specific E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules emission data. Nonpoint emissions for 2017 and 2025 were developed by applying the appropriate growth and control factors to the 2007 inventory. Nonroad source emissions for 2017 and 2025 were developed using growth factors from EPA’s NMIM2008 model. On-road emissions for 2017 and 2025 were developed using EPA’s MOVES2010a mobile source inventory model. EPA has determined that the emissions inventories discussed above as provided by MDE are approvable. For detailed information on the projected inventories, see Appendices B and C of the State submittal, and for more information on EPA’s analysis of the 59715 emissions inventory, see EPA’s emissions inventory TSD dated July 23, 2014, all of which are available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action. Table 3 shows the inventories for the 2007 attainment year, the 2017 interim year, and the 2025 maintenance plan end year for the Baltimore Area. TABLE 3—COMPARISION OF 2007 ATTAINMENT YEAR INVENTORY WITH 2017 AND 2025 PROJECTED EMISSIONS IN THE BALTIMORE AREA (TPY) 2007 2017 Change from 2007–2017 2025 Change from 2007–2025 SO2 ....................................................................................... NOX ...................................................................................... PM2.5 .................................................................................... VOC ..................................................................................... NH3 ....................................................................................... 103,510 116,595 19,005 64,416 4,117 24,714 69,258 16,374 46,800 3,905 24,620 58,249 16,205 44,302 3,930 78,796 47,337 2,631 17,616 212 78,890 58,346 2,800 20,114 187 Total .............................................................................. 307,643 161,051 147,305 146,592 160,337 rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Table 3 shows that between 2007 and 2017, the Baltimore Area is projected to reduce SO2 emissions by 76.1 percent, NOX emissions by 40.6 percent, PM2.5 emissions by 13.8 percent, NH3 by 5.1 percent, and VOC by 27.3 percent. Between 2007 and 2025, the Baltimore Area is projected to reduce SO2 emissions by 76.2 percent, NOX emissions by 50.0 percent, PM2.5 emissions by 14.7 percent, NH3 by 4.5 percent and VOC by 31.2 percent. The projected emissions inventories show that the Baltimore Area will continue to maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS during the 10 year maintenance period. 3. Monitoring Network There are eight PM2.5 monitors in the Baltimore Area. EPA has determined that Maryland’s maintenance plan includes a commitment to continue to operate its EPA-approved monitoring network, as necessary to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. The Baltimore Area maintenance plan includes the State’s commitment to continue to operate and maintain its PM2.5 air quality monitoring network, consistent with EPA’s monitoring requirements, as necessary to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In its December 12, 2013 submittal, Maryland states that it will consult with EPA prior to making any necessary changes to the network and will continue to quality assure the monitoring data in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58. 4. Verification of Continued Attainment To provide for tracking of the emission levels in the Baltimore Area, MDE will periodically update the VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Oct 02, 2014 Jkt 235001 emissions inventory, consisting of annual and periodic evaluations. Annual emissions updates of stationary sources, the Highway Performance Monitoring System vehicle miles travelled data reported to the Federal Highway Administration, and other growth indicators, which will be compared to the growth assumptions to determine if the projected growth and observed growth are consistent. MDE will also submit comprehensive tracking inventories to EPA every three years as required by EPA’s Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) or as required by other federal regulations during the maintenance plan period. 5. Contingency Measures The contingency plan provisions for maintenance plans are designed to promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to ensure that a state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the events that would ‘‘trigger’’ the adoption and implementation of a contingency measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the state would adopt and implement the measure(s). Maryland’s maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the adoption and implementation of contingency measures to further reduce emissions should a violation occur. These procedures would be triggered in one of PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 three situations: (1) When the annual actual emissions of SO2, NOX, or PM2.5 exceed the attainment year inventories that are identified in Table 3, (2) when there is an annual exceedance (annual average for one year at a federal reference method monitor located in the Baltimore Area) of 15.0 mg/m3; or, (3) When there is any violation (three year average of the annual average at a federal reference method monitor located in the Baltimore Area) of 15.0 mg/m3 or greater. If any future year emissions inventory indicates that the Baltimore Area’s total emissions of SO2, NOX, or PM2.5 exceeds the attainment year levels, MDE would first perform an audit to determine if inventory refinements are needed, including a review of whether appropriate models, control strategies, monitoring strategies, planning assumptions, industrial throughput, and production data were used in the attainment year and future year projections. If the audit does not reconcile the emissions exceedances, MDE will implement one or more of the contingency measures identified in the plan. If an annual exceedance of 15.0 mg/m3 occurs, MDE commits to implementing one of the contingency measures identified for additional emission reductions, and if a violation occurs, MDE commits to implementing two or more of the contingency measures to correct the violation. As explained in greater detail in the Baltimore Area maintenance plan, the candidate contingency measures include the following: (1) PM2.5 RACM determinations; (2) NOX RACM determination; (3) Non Road diesel emission reduction strategies; (4) low E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 59716 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS sulfur home heating oil requirements; (5) alternative fuel and diesel retrofit programs for fleet vehicle operations; and, (6) wet suppression upgrade requirements for concrete manufacturing. EPA finds that the Baltimore Area maintenance plan includes appropriate contingency measures as necessary to ensure MDE will promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Finally, the maintenance plan establishes a schedule for implementation of contingency measures if needed, and MDE has committed to full implementation of contingency measures or programs within 24 months after notification by EPA that contingency measures must be implemented or 27 months after quality assured data indicates an exceedance or violation has occurred. For all of the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve the 1997 annual PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Baltimore Area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. C. Transportation Conformity Section 176(c) of the CAA requires Federal actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to ‘‘conform to’’ the goals of SIPs. This means that such actions will not cause or contribute to violations of a NAAQS, worsen the severity of an existing violation, or delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone. Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the transportation conformity rule (40 CFR Part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state air quality and transportation agencies, EPA, and the FHWA and FTA to demonstrate that their long range transportation plans and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to applicable SIPs. This is typically determined by showing that estimated emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal to the MVEBs contained in the SIP. On December 12, 2013, Maryland submitted a SIP revision that contains the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX onroad mobile source budgets for the Baltimore Area. Maryland did not provide emission budgets for SO2, VOC, and NH3 because it concluded, consistent with the presumptions regarding these precursors in the Transportation Conformity Rule at 40 VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Oct 02, 2014 Jkt 235001 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), which predated and was not disturbed by the litigation on the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, that emissions of these precursors from motor vehicles are not significant contributors to the Area’s PM2.5 air quality problem. EPA issued conformity regulations to implement the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in July 2004 and May 2005 (69 FR 40004, July 1, 2004 and 70 FR 24280, May 6, 2005). Those actions were not part of the final rule remanded to EPA by the D.C. Circuit Court in NRDC v. EPA, No. 08–1250 (January 4, 2013), in which the D.C. Circuit Court remanded to EPA the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule because it concluded that EPA must implement that NAAQS pursuant to the PMspecific implementation provisions of subpart 4, rather than solely under the general provisions of subpart 1. That decision does not affect EPA’s proposed approval of the MVEBs for the Baltimore Area. The MVEBs are presented in Table 4. reviewed the MVEBs and found them consistent with the maintenance plan and found that the budgets meet the criteria for adequacy and approval. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Baltimore Area for transportation conformity purposes. Additional information pertaining to the review of the MVEBs can be found in the transportation conformity TSD dated May 20, 2014, available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action. VI. Proposed Actions EPA is proposing to approve the request submitted by Maryland to redesignate the Baltimore Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has evaluated the State’s redesignation request and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. The monitoring data demonstrates that the Baltimore Area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and, for the reasons discussed TABLE 4—MVEBS FOR BALTIMORE AREA, MARYLAND FOR THE 1997 previously, that it will continue to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is PM2.5 NAAQS IN TPY also proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the Baltimore Year PM2.5 NOX Area as a revision to the Maryland SIP 2017 .......... 1,218.60 29,892.01 for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 2025 .......... 1,051.39 21,594.96 because the plan meets the requirements of CAA section 175A for the standard, EPA’s substantive criteria for as described previously in this proposed determining adequacy of MVEBs are set rulemaking notice. In addition, EPA is out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). proposing to approve the 2017 and 2025 Additionally, to approve the MVEBs, PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Baltimore EPA must complete a thorough review Area for transportation conformity of the SIP, in this case the PM2.5 purposes. Final approval of the maintenance plan, and conclude that redesignation request would change the with the projected level of motor vehicle official designation of the Baltimore and all other emissions, the SIP will Area from nonattainment to attainment achieve its overall purpose, in this case as found at 40 CFR part 81, for the 1997 providing for maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and would annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA’s process for incorporate into the Maryland SIP the determining adequacy of a MVEB maintenance plan ensuring continued consists of three basic steps: (1) attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 Providing public notification of a SIP NAAQS in the Area for 10 years after submission; (2) providing the public the redesignation. EPA is soliciting public opportunity to comment on the MVEB comments on the issues discussed in during a public comment period; and, this document. These comments will be (3) EPA taking action on the MVEB. considered before taking final action. On April 30, 2014, EPA initiated an VII. Statutory and Executive Order adequacy review of the MVEBs for the Reviews 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS that Maryland included in its redesignation Under the CAA, the Administrator is request submittal. As such, a notice of required to approve a SIP submission the submission of these MVEBs were that complies with the provisions of the posted on the adequacy Web site (http:// CAA and applicable Federal regulations. www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). transconf/currsips.htm). The public Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, comment period closed on May 30, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 2014. There were no public comments provided that they meet the criteria of received. EPA is acting on making the the CAA. Accordingly, this action adequacy finding final through a merely proposes to approve state law as separate notice of adequacy. EPA has meeting Federal requirements and does PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action: • is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule proposing to approve Maryland’s redesignation request, associated maintenance plan, and MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes for the Baltimore Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:51 Oct 02, 2014 Jkt 235001 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: September 15, 2014. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. 2014–23638 Filed 10–2–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of Inspector General 42 CFR Parts 1001 and 1003 RIN 0936–AA06 Medicare and State Health Care Programs: Fraud and Abuse; Revisions to Safe Harbors Under the Anti-Kickback Statute, and Civil Monetary Penalty Rules Regarding Beneficiary Inducements and Gainsharing Office of Inspector General (OIG), HHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: This proposed rule would amend the safe harbors to the antikickback statute and the civil monetary penalty (CMP) rules under the authority of the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The proposed rule would add new safe harbors, some of which codify statutory changes set forth in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111–148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111–152, 124 Stat. 1029 (2010) (ACA), and all of which would protect certain payment practices and business arrangements from criminal prosecution or civil sanctions under the anti-kickback statute. We also propose to codify revisions to the definition of ‘‘remuneration,’’ added by the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 and ACA, and add a gainsharing CMP provision in our regulations. DATES: To ensure consideration, comments must be delivered to the address provided below by no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on December 2, 2014. ADDRESSES: In commenting, please reference file code OIG–403–P3. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 59717 However, you may submit comments using one of three ways (no duplicates, please): 1. Electronically. You may submit electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// www.regulations.gov. (Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, if possible.) 2. By regular, express, or overnight mail. You may mail your printed or written submissions to the following address: Patrice Drew, Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: OIG–403–P, Room 5269, Cohen Building, 330 Independence Avenue SW., Room 5269, Washington, DC 20201. Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period. 3. By hand or courier. You may deliver, by hand or courier, before the close of the comment period, your printed or written comments to: Patrice Drew, Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, Cohen Building, 330 Independence Avenue SW., Room 5269, Washington, DC 20201. Because access to the interior of the Cohen Building is not readily available to persons without Federal Government identification, commenters are encouraged to schedule their delivery with one of our staff at (202) 619–1368. Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the end of the comment period will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov for public viewing. Hard copies will also be available for public inspection at the Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, Cohen Building, 330 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201, Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone (202) 619– 1368. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Westphal, Office of Counsel to the Inspector General, (202) 619–0335, for questions relating to the proposed rule. Executive Summary A. Need For Regulatory Action MMA and ACA include exceptions to the anti-kickback statute, and BBA of 1997 and ACA include exceptions to the definition of ‘‘remuneration’’ under the civil monetary penalties law. OIG proposes to codify those changes here. At the same time, OIG proposes additional changes to make technical corrections to an existing regulation and proposes new safe harbors to the anti- E:\FR\FM\03OCP1.SGM 03OCP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 192 (Friday, October 3, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59703-59717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23638]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0387; FRL-9917-40-Region 3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maryland; Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for the 
Baltimore, Maryland Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Annual Fine 
Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve the State of Maryland's request to redesignate to attainment 
the Baltimore, Maryland Nonattainment Area (Baltimore Area or Area) for 
the 1997 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national 
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The EPA has determined that the 
Baltimore Area attained the standard and is proposing to determine that 
it continues to attain the standard. In addition, EPA is proposing to 
approve, as a revision to the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP), 
the Baltimore Area maintenance plan to show maintenance of the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025 for the Area. The 
maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and 
nitrogen oxides (NOX) mobile vehicle emissions budgets 
(MVEBs) for the Baltimore Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS, which EPA is proposing to approve for transportation conformity 
purposes. These actions are being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2014-0387 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0387, Cristina Fernandez, Associate 
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.

[[Page 59704]]

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2014-0387. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online 
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal 
are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, Air and 
Radiation Management Administration, 1800 Washington Boulevard, 
Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers, at (215) 814-2308, or 
by email at powers.marilyn@epa.gov.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Requirements
    A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment
    B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan
III. Summary of Proposed Actions
IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on Proposed Actions
    A. Effect of the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit Court's 
Decisions on EPA's CSAPR
    B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Court Decision 
Regarding the PM2.5 Implementation under Subpart 4 of 
Part D of Title I of the CAA
V. EPA's Analysis of Maryland's SIP Submittal
    A. Redesignation Request
    B. Maintenance Plan
    C. Transportation Conformity
VI. Proposed Actions
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The first air quality standards for PM2.5 were 
established on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652). EPA promulgated an annual 
standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), 
based on a three-year average of annual mean PM2.5 
concentrations (the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard). In the same 
rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ based 
on a three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 
concentrations.
    On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944, 1014), EPA published air quality 
area designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In that 
rulemaking action, EPA designated the Baltimore Area as nonattainment 
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The Baltimore Area is 
comprised of the City of Baltimore, and Anne Arundel, Baltimore, 
Carroll, Harford, Howard, and Queen Anne Counties. See 40 CFR 81.321.
    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the annual average 
standard at 15 [mu]g/m\3\ but revised the 24-hour standard to 35 [mu]g/
m\3\, based again on the three-year average of the 98th percentile of 
the 24-hour concentrations (the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
standard). On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA published 
designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, which 
became effective on December 14, 2009. In that rulemaking action, EPA 
designated the Baltimore Area as attainment for the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 58737 and 40 CFR 81.321. Since the 
Baltimore Area is designated nonattainment for the annual NAAQS 
promulgated in 1997, today's proposed rulemaking action addresses the 
redesignation to attainment only for this standard.
    On May 22, 2012 (77 FR 30208), EPA determined that the Baltimore 
Area had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and that the 
Area attained the NAAQS by the statutory attainment date of April 5, 
2010. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c) and based on the determination of 
attainment, the requirements for the Baltimore Area to submit an 
attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control 
measures (RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, contingency 
measures, and other planning SIP revisions related to the attainment of 
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS were suspended until such time 
as: (1) The Area is redesignated to attainment for the standard, at 
which time the requirements no longer apply or (2) EPA determines that 
the Area has again violated the standard, at which time such plans are 
required to be submitted.
    On December 12, 2013, the State of Maryland, through the Maryland 
Department of the Environment (MDE), formally submitted a request to 
redesignate the Baltimore Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Concurrently, MDE submitted a 
maintenance plan for the Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued 
attainment throughout the Area over the next 10 years. The maintenance 
plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX 
MVEBs used for transportation conformity purposes for the Baltimore 
Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. EPA's Requirements

A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment 
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA 
allows for redesignation providing that: (1) EPA determines that the 
area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) EPA has fully approved the 
applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k) of the 
CAA; (3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to 
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from 
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air 
pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable 
reductions; (4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area 
as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and, (5) the 
state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the 
area under section 110 and part D of the CAA. Each of these 
requirements are discussed in section V (EPA's Analysis

[[Page 59705]]

of Maryland's SIP Submittal) of this proposed rulemaking action.
    EPA has provided guidance on redesignation in the ``State 
Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title 
I of the CAA Amendments of 1990,'' (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) (the 
``General Preamble'') and has provided further guidance on processing 
redesignation requests in the following documents: (1) ``Procedures for 
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum 
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, 
September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the ``1992 Calcagni 
Memorandum''); (2) ``SIP Actions Submitted in Response to CAA 
Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, October 28, 1992; and, (3) ``Part D New Source 
Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to 
Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994.

B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan

    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance 
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. 
Under section 175A of the CAA, the plan must demonstrate continued 
attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after EPA 
approves the redesignation of an area to attainment. Eight years after 
the redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan 
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility 
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such 
contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, as EPA deems 
necessary to assure prompt correction of any future PM2.5 
violations.
    The 1992 Calcagni Memorandum provides additional guidance on the 
content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum states that a maintenance 
plan should address the following provisions: (1) An attainment 
emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance demonstration showing 
maintenance for 10 years; (3) a commitment to maintain the existing 
monitoring network; (4) verification of continued attainment; and, (5) 
a contingency plan to prevent or correct future violations of the 
NAAQS.
    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, 
control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for nonattainment 
areas and for areas seeking redesignation to attainment for a given 
NAAQS. These emission control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP and 
attainment demonstration SIP revisions) and maintenance plans create 
MVEBs based on onroad mobile source emissions for the relevant criteria 
pollutants and/or their precursors, where appropriate, to address 
pollution from onroad transportation sources. The MVEBs are the 
portions of the total allowable emissions that are allocated to onroad 
vehicle use that, together with emissions from all other sources in the 
area, will provide attainment, RFP, or maintenance, as applicable. The 
budget serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned 
transportation system. Under 40 CFR part 93, an MVEB for an area 
seeking a redesignation to attainment is established for the last year 
of the maintenance plan.
    The maintenance plan for the Baltimore Area includes 2017 and 2025 
PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for transportation conformity 
purposes. The transportation conformity determination for the Area is 
further discussed in subsection C of section V (Transportation 
Conformity) of this proposed rulemaking action and in a technical 
support document (TSD) dated May 20, 2014, which is available in the 
docket for this proposed rulemaking action.

III. Summary of Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to take several rulemaking actions related to the 
redesignation of the Baltimore Area to attainment for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to find that the Baltimore 
Area meets the requirements for redesignation for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is 
proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the Baltimore Area as a 
revision to the Maryland SIP for the 1997 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS. Approval of the maintenance plan is one of the CAA criteria for 
redesignation of the Area to attainment for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. The Baltimore Area maintenance plan is designed 
to ensure continued attainment in the Area for 10 years after 
redesignation. EPA is also proposing to approve the MVEBs for 
PM2.5 and NOX emissions for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard. In this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing 
to find that the Area continues to attain the standard.
    EPA previously determined that the Baltimore Area had attained the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and that it had done so by its 
applicable attainment date. See 77 FR 30208, May 22, 2012. In this 
rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to find that the Area continues to 
attain the standard. EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve MDE's 
request to change the designation for the Baltimore Area from 
nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on Proposed Actions

    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA considers the effects of 
three legal decisions on this redesignation. EPA first considers the 
effects of the D.C. Circuit Court and U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in 
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), 
rev'd, No. 12-1182 (S. Ct. April 29, 2014). The Supreme Court reversed 
the D.C. Circuit Court decision vacating and remanding the Cross-State 
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). EPA is also considering the effect of the 
January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit decision remanding 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''). Natural Resources Defense 
Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

A. Effect of the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit Court's Decisions 
Regarding EPA's CSAPR

    EPA has considered the recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court 
and the D.C. Circuit Court regarding EPA's CSAPR, and has concluded 
that the decisions do not affect the Agency's proposal to redesignate 
the Baltimore Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA promulgated CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 
2011) to replace the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which has been 
in place since 2005. See 76 FR 59517. Both CSAPR and CAIR require 
significant reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
and NOX from electric generating units (EGUs) to limit the 
interstate transport of these pollutants and the ozone and fine 
particulate matter they form in the atmosphere. The D.C. Circuit Court 
initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 
2008), but ultimately remanded the 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). After staying the 
implementation of CSAPR on December 20, 2011 and instructing EPA to 
continue to implement CAIR in

[[Page 59706]]

the interim, on August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a 
decision to vacate CSAPR, with further instruction to continue 
administering CAIR ``pending the promulgation of a valid replacement.'' 
EME Homer City Generation L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 
On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the D.C. 
Circuit Court and remanded the matter to the D.C. Circuit Court for 
further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., No. 12-
1182 (S. Ct. April 29, 2014).
    In its submission, MDE does not rely on either CAIR or CSAPR for 
emission reductions that contributed to the Baltimore Area's attainment 
of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, nor does the State rely on 
either of the rules to show maintenance of the standard in the Area for 
10 years following redesignation. However, because CAIR was promulgated 
in 2005 and incentivized sources and states to begin achieving early 
emission reductions, the air quality data examined by EPA in issuing a 
final determination of attainment for the Baltimore Area in 2009 
(November 20, 2009, 74 FR 60119) and the air quality data from the Area 
since 2005 necessarily reflect reductions in emissions from upwind 
sources as a result of CAIR. Nonetheless, in this case EPA believes 
that it is appropriate to redesignate the Area. Modeling conducted by 
EPA during the CSAPR rulemaking process, which used a baseline 
emissions scenario that ``backed out'' the effects of CAIR, see 76 FR 
at 48223, projected that the counties in the Baltimore Area would have 
PM2.5 annual design values \1\ below the level of the 1997 
annual PM2.5 standard for 2012 and 2014 without taking into 
account emission reductions from CAIR or CSAPR. See Appendix B of EPA's 
``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document,'' (Page 
B-45, B-46), which is available in the docket for this proposed 
rulemaking action. In addition, the 2010-2012 quality-assured, quality-
controlled, and certified monitoring data for the Baltimore Area 
confirms that 2012 PM2.5 annual design values for each 
monitoring site in the Area remained well below the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS, and, thus, the entire Area continued to attain 
the standard in 2012. See Table 1 of this proposed rulemaking action 
for the Baltimore Area's monitoring data for 2010-2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As defined in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, section (1)(c). A 
monitoring site's design value is compared to the level of the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS to determine compliance with the 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The status of CSAPR is not relevant to this redesignation. CSAPR 
was promulgated in June 2011, and the rule was stayed by the D.C. 
Circuit Court just six months later, before the trading programs it 
created were scheduled to go into effect. Therefore, the Baltimore 
Area's attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard cannot 
have been a result of any emission reductions associated with CSAPR. In 
sum, neither the current status of CAIR nor the current status of CSAPR 
affects any of the criteria for proposed approval of this redesignation 
request for the Area.

B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Court Decision Regarding 
PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of the CAA

1. Background
    On January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 
the D.C. Circuit Court remanded to EPA the ``Final Clean Air Fine 
Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the 
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final rule (73 FR 
28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, ``1997 PM2.5 
Implementation Rule''). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The D.C. Circuit 
Court found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS pursuant to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of 
Part D of Title I of the CAA (subpart 1), rather than the particulate-
matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of Part D of Title I (subpart 
4).
    Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision, the states had worked 
towards meeting the air quality goals of the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with EPA regulations and guidance 
derived from subpart 1. Subsequent to this decision, in rulemaking that 
responds to the D.C. Circuit Court's remand, EPA took this history into 
account by proposing to set a new deadline for any remaining 
submissions that may be required for moderate nonattainment areas as a 
result of the Court's decision regarding subpart 4.
    On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566) EPA finalized the ``Identification of 
Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of SIP 
Provisions for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS'' rule (the PM2.5 Subpart 4 
Classification and Deadline Rule). The rule identifies the 
classification under subpart 4 for areas currently designated 
nonattainment for the 1997 annual and/or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 
standards, and sets a new deadline for states to submit attainment-
related and other SIP elements required for these areas pursuant to 
subpart 4. The rule also identifies EPA guidance that is currently 
available regarding subpart 4 requirements. The PM2.5 
Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule specifies December 31, 2014 
as the deadline for the states to submit any additional attainment-
related SIP-elements that may be needed to meet the applicable 
requirements of subpart 4 for areas currently designated nonattainment 
for the 1997 annual and/or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and to 
submit SIPs addressing the nonattainment NSR requirements in subpart 4. 
Therefore, as explained in detail in the following section, any 
additional attainment-related SIP elements that may be needed for the 
Baltimore Area to meet the applicable requirements of subpart 4 were 
not due at the time that Maryland submitted its redesignation request 
for the Area. Maryland submitted its request for redesignating the 
Baltimore Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS on December 
12, 2013.
2. Proposal on This Issue
    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA addresses the effect of the 
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 ruling and the proposed 
PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification and Deadline 
Rule on the redesignation request for the Baltimore Area. EPA is 
proposing to determine that the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 
decision does not prevent EPA from redesignating the Baltimore Area to 
attainment. Even in light of the D.C. Circuit Court's decision, 
redesignation for the Baltimore Area is appropriate under the CAA and 
EPA's longstanding interpretations of the CAA provisions regarding 
redesignation. EPA first explains its longstanding interpretation that 
requirements that are imposed, or that become due, after a complete 
redesignation request is submitted for an area that is attaining the 
standard, are not applicable for purposes of evaluating a redesignation 
request. Second, EPA then shows that, even if EPA applies the subpart 4 
requirements to the redesignation request for the Baltimore Area and 
disregards the provisions of its 1997 annual PM2.5 
implementation rule remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court, the State's 
request for redesignation of the Baltimore Area still qualifies for 
approval. EPA's discussion takes into account the effect of the D.C. 
Circuit Court's ruling and the proposed PM2.5 Subpart 4 
Classification and Deadline Rule on the Baltimore Area maintenance 
plan, which EPA views as

[[Page 59707]]

approvable when subpart 4 requirements are considered.
a. Applicable Requirements Under Subpart 4 for Purposes of Evaluating 
the Redesignation Request for the Baltimore Area
    With respect to the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the 
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 ruling rejected EPA's reasons for 
implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with the 
provisions of subpart 1, and remanded that matter to EPA, so that it 
could address implementation of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 
under subpart 4, in addition to subpart 1. For the purposes of 
evaluating the redesignation request for the Baltimore 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 redesignation of the Baltimore Area. 
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 1992 
Calcagni Memorandum. See also ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to 
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum 
from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air and 
Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro memorandum); Final Redesignation 
of Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 12465-66, March 7, 1995); Final 
Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 FR 25418, 25424-27, May 12, 
2003); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding 
EPA's redesignation rulemaking applying this interpretation and 
expressly rejecting Sierra Club's view that the meaning of 
``applicable'' under the statute is ``whatever should have been in the 
plan at the time of attainment rather than whatever actually was in the 
plan and already implemented or due at the time of attainment'').\2\ In 
this case, at the time that the State submitted its redesignation 
request, the requirements under subpart 4 were not due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 redesignation of 
the Baltimore Area, the subpart 4 requirements were not due at the time 
Maryland submitted the redesignation request is in keeping with the 
EPA's interpretation of subpart 2 requirements for subpart 1 ozone 
areas redesignated subsequent to the D.C. Circuit Court's decision in 
South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 
2006). In South Coast, the D.C. Circuit Court found that EPA was not 
permitted to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely under 
subpart 1, and held that EPA was required under the statute to 
implement the standard under the ozone-specific requirements of subpart 
2 as well. Subsequent to the South Coast decision, in evaluating and 
acting upon redesignation requests for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 
that were submitted to EPA for areas under subpart 1, EPA applied its 
longstanding interpretation of the CAA that ``applicable 
requirements,'' for purposes of evaluating a redesignation, are those 
that had been due at the time the redesignation request was submitted. 
See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of Manitowoc County and Door County 
Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 22050, April 27, 2010). In those 
actions, EPA, therefore, did not consider subpart 2 requirements to be 
``applicable'' for the purposes of evaluating whether the area should 
be redesignated under section 107(d)(3)(E).
    EPA's interpretation derives from the provisions of section 
107(d)(3). Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an area to be 
redesignated, a state must meet ``all requirements `applicable' to the 
area under section 110 and part D.'' Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides 
that the EPA must have fully approved the ``applicable'' SIP for the 
area seeking redesignation. These two sections read together support 
EPA's interpretation of ``applicable'' as only those requirements that 
came due prior to submission of a complete redesignation request. 
First, holding states to an ongoing obligation to adopt new CAA 
requirements that arose after the state submitted its redesignation 
request, in order to be redesignated, would make it problematic or 
impossible for EPA to act on redesignation requests in accordance with 
the 18-month deadline Congress set for EPA action in section 
107(d)(3)(D). If ``applicable requirements'' were interpreted to be a 
continuing flow of requirements with no reasonable limitation, states, 
after submitting a redesignation request, would be forced continuously 
to make additional SIP submissions that in turn would require EPA to 
undertake further notice-and-comment rulemaking actions to act on those 
submissions. This would create a regime of unceasing rulemaking that 
would delay action on the redesignation request beyond the 18-month 
timeframe provided by the CAA for this purpose.
    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 
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA and EPA's 
PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment Classification and Deadline 
Rule compound the consequences of imposing requirements that come due 
after the redesignation request is submitted. Maryland submitted its 
redesignation request for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS on 
December 12, 2013, which is prior to the deadline by which the 
Baltimore Area is required to meet the applicable requirements pursuant 
to subpart 4.
    To require Maryland's fully-completed and pending redesignation 
request for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS to comply now with 
requirements of subpart 4 that the D.C. Circuit Court announced only in 
January 2013 and for which the deadline to comply has not yet come, 
would be to give retroactive effect to

[[Page 59708]]

such requirements and provide the State a unique and earlier deadline 
for compliance solely on the basis of submitting its redesignation 
request for the Baltimore Area. The D.C. Circuit Court recognized the 
inequity of this type of retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. Whitman, 
285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),\3\ where it upheld the D.C. Circuit 
Court's ruling refusing to make retroactive EPA's determination that 
the St. Louis area did not meet its attainment deadline. In that case, 
petitioners urged the D.C. Circuit Court to make EPA's nonattainment 
determination effective as of the date that the statute required, 
rather than the later date on which EPA actually made the 
determination. The D.C. Circuit Court rejected this view, stating that 
applying it ``would likely impose large costs on States, which would 
face fines and suits for not implementing air pollution prevention 
plans . . . even though they were not on notice at the time.'' Id. at 
68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable to penalize the States by 
rejecting their redesignation request for an area that is already 
attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard and that met all 
applicable requirements known to be in effect at the time of the 
requests. For EPA now to reject the redesignation request solely 
because the States did not expressly address subpart 4 requirements 
which have not yet come due, would inflict the same unfairness 
condemned by the D.C. Circuit Court in Sierra Club v. Whitman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

b. Subpart 4 Requirements and Maryland Redesignation Request
    Even if EPA were to take the view that the D.C. Circuit Court's 
January 4, 2013 decision requires that, in the context of pending 
redesignations for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, subpart 4 
requirements were due and in effect at the time Maryland submitted its 
redesignation request, EPA proposes to determine that the Baltimore 
Area still qualifies for redesignation to attainment for the 1997 
annual PM2.5 standard. As explained subsequently, EPA 
believes that the redesignation request for the Baltimore 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 Baltimore Area, EPA notes 
that subpart 4 incorporates components of subpart 1, 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 coarse particulate matter 
(PM10) \4\ nonattainment areas, and under the D.C. Circuit 
Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory 
requirements also apply for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA 
has longstanding general guidance that interprets the 1990 amendments 
to the CAA, making recommendations to states for meeting the statutory 
requirements for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See the General 
Preamble. In the General Preamble, EPA discussed the relationship of 
subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and pointed out that subpart 
1 requirements were to an extent ``subsumed by, or integrally related 
to, the more specific PM10 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 request, in order to 
identify any additional requirements which would apply under subpart 4, 
consistent with EPA's June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4 
Nonattainment Classification and Deadline Rule, EPA is considering the 
Baltimore Area to be a ``moderate'' PM2.5 nonattainment 
area. As EPA explained in its June 2, 2014 rule, section 188 of the CAA 
provides that all areas designated nonattainment areas under subpart 4 
are initially classified by operation of law as ``moderate'' 
nonattainment areas, and will remain moderate nonattainment areas 
unless and until EPA reclassifies the area as a ``serious'' 
nonattainment area. Accordingly, EPA believes that it is appropriate to 
limit the evaluation of the potential impact of subpart 4 requirements 
to those that would be applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. 
Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 4 apply to moderate nonattainment 
areas and include the following: (1) An approved permit program for 
construction of new and modified major stationary sources (section 
189(a)(1)(A)); (2) an attainment demonstration (section 189(a)(1)(B)); 
(3) provisions for RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) quantitative 
milestones demonstrating RFP toward attainment by the applicable 
attainment date (section 189(c)).
    The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section 
189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit provisions 
requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM10, without adding 
to them. Consequently, EPA believes that section 189(a)(1)(A) does not 
itself impose for redesignation purposes any additional requirements 
for moderate areas beyond those contained in subpart 1.\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 the 
area can maintain the standard with a prevention of significant 
deterioration (PSD) program after redesignation. A detailed rationale 
for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, 
``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting 
Redesignation to Attainment.'' See also rulemakings for Detroit, 
Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, 
Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 
FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-
31837, June 21, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under 
subpart 4,\6\ when EPA evaluates a redesignation request under either 
subpart 1 or 4, any area that is attaining the PM2.5 
standards is viewed as having satisfied the attainment planning 
requirements for these subparts. For redesignations, EPA has for many 
years interpreted attainment-linked requirements as not applicable for 
areas attaining the standard. In the General Preamble, EPA stated that: 
``The requirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request for 
redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality data 
for the area must show that the area has already attained. Showing that 
the State will make RFP towards attainment will, therefore, have no 
meaning at that point.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ i.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, milestone 
requirements, contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The General Preamble also explained that: ``The section 172(c)(9) 
requirements are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the 
applicable

[[Page 59709]]

date. These requirements no longer apply when an area has attained the 
standard and is eligible for redesignation. Furthermore, section 175A 
for maintenance plans . . . provides specific requirements for 
contingency measures that effectively supersede the requirements of 
section 172(c)(9) for these areas.'' Id. EPA similarly stated in its 
1992 Calcagni Memorandum that: ``The requirements for reasonable 
further progress and other measures needed for attainment will not 
apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not 
attaining the standard.''
    It is evident that even if we were to consider the D.C. Circuit 
Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that 
attainment-related requirements specific to subpart 4 should be imposed 
retroactively \7\ or prior to December 31, 2014 and, thus, were due 
prior to the State's redesignation request, those requirements do not 
apply to an area that is attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS, 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 previously, we do not believe that the 
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision should be interpreted 
so as to impose these requirements on the states retroactively. 
Sierra Club v. Whitman, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, even outside the context of redesignations, EPA has 
viewed the obligations to submit attainment-related SIP planning 
requirements of subpart 4 as inapplicable for areas that EPA determines 
are attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 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 
Baltimore Area has attained and continues to attain the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Under its longstanding interpretation, EPA is 
proposing to determine here that the Baltimore Area meets the 
attainment-related plan requirements of subparts 1 and 4 for the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 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 this redesignation request.
c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5 Precursors
    The D.C. Circuit Court in NRDC v. EPA remanded to EPA the two rules 
at issue in the case with instructions to EPA to re-promulgate them 
consistent with the requirements of subpart 4. EPA in this section 
addresses the D.C. Circuit 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, 
section 189(e) of the CAA specifically provides that control 
requirements for major stationary sources of direct PM10 
shall also apply to PM10 precursors from those sources, 
except where EPA determines that major stationary sources of such 
precursors ``do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels 
which exceed the standard in the area.'' EPA's 1997 PM2.5 
Implementation Rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court, contained 
rebuttable presumptions concerning certain PM2.5 precursors 
applicable to attainment plans and control measures related to those 
plans. Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA provided, among other 
things, that a state was ``not required to address VOC [and 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 D.C. Circuit Court in its January 4, 2013 decision made 
reference to both section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51. 1002, and stated that: 
``In light of our disposition, we need not address the petitioners' 
challenge to the presumptions in [40 CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic 
compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5 precursors, as subpart 4 
expressly governs precursor presumptions.'' NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10. 
Elsewhere in the D.C. Circuit Court's opinion, however, the D.C. 
Circuit Court observed: ``Ammonia is a precursor to fine particulate 
matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5 and 
PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area governed by 
subpart 4, a precursor is presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 
7513a(e) [section 189(e)].'' Id. at 21, n.7.
    For a number of reasons, EPA believes that its proposed 
redesignation of the Baltimore Area for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS is consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court's 
decision on this aspect of subpart 4. While the D.C. Circuit Court, 
citing section 189(e), stated that ``for a PM10 area 
governed by subpart 4, a precursor is `presumptively regulated,' '' the 
D.C. Circuit Court expressly declined to decide the specific challenge 
to EPA's 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule provisions regarding 
ammonia and VOC as precursors. The D.C. Circuit Court had no occasion 
to reach whether and how it was substantively necessary to regulate any 
specific precursor in a particular PM2.5 nonattainment area, 
and did not address what might be necessary for purposes of acting upon 
a redesignation request.
    However, even if EPA takes the view that the requirements of 
subpart 4 were deemed applicable at the time the State submitted the 
redesignation request, and disregards the 1997 PM2.5 
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 Baltimore Area, EPA believes that doing so is consistent with 
proposing redesignation of the Area for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard. The Baltimore Area has attained the 1997 
annual PM2.5 standard without any specific additional 
controls of VOC and

[[Page 59710]]

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, EPA 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 Baltimore Area 
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained subsequently, 
EPA does 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 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 rulemaking action proposes to determine 
that Maryland's 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 Baltimore 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 Baltimore 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 the Area. See 57 FR 13539-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Baltimore Area has reduced VOC emissions through the 
implementation of various control programs including VOC Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (RACT) regulations and various onroad 
and nonroad motor vehicle control programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule 
provisions in 40 CFR 51.1002 were not directed at evaluation of 
PM2.5 precursors in the context of redesignation, but at SIP 
plans and control measures required to bring a nonattainment area into 
attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. By contrast, 
redesignation to attainment primarily requires the nonattainment area 
to have already attained due to permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions, and to demonstrate that controls in place can continue to 
maintain the standard. Thus, even if we regard the D.C. Circuit Court's 
January 4, 2013 decision as calling for ``presumptive regulation'' of 
ammonia and VOC for PM2.5 under the attainment planning 
provisions of subpart 4, those provisions in and of themselves do not 
require additional controls of these precursors for an area that 
already qualifies for redesignation. Nor does EPA believe that 
requiring the State to address precursors differently than it has 
already, would result in a substantively different outcome.
    Although, as EPA has emphasized, its consideration here of 
precursor requirements under subpart 4 is in the context of a 
redesignation to attainment, EPA's existing interpretation of subpart 4 
requirements with respect to precursors in attainment plans for 
PM10 contemplates that states may develop attainment plans 
that regulate only those precursors that are necessary for purposes of 
attainment in the area in question, i.e., states may determine that 
only certain precursors need be regulated for attainment and control 
purposes.\10\ Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of 
subpart 4 for PM10.\11\ EPA believes that application of 
this approach to PM2.5 precursors under subpart 4 is 
reasonable. Because the Baltimore Area has already attained the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS with its current approach to regulation 
of PM2.5 precursors, EPA believes that it is reasonable to 
conclude in the context of this redesignation that there is no need to 
revisit the attainment control strategy with respect to the treatment 
of precursors. Even if the D.C. Circuit Court's decision is construed 
to impose an obligation, in evaluating this redesignation request, to 
consider additional precursors under subpart 4, it would not affect 
EPA's approval here of the State's request for redesignation of the 
Baltimore Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In the 
context of a redesignation, the State has shown that the Baltimore Area 
has attained the standard. Moreover, the State has shown and EPA is 
proposing to determine that attainment of the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Baltimore Area is due to permanent and 
enforceable emissions reductions on all precursors necessary to provide 
for continued attainment of the standard (see section V.A.3 of this 
rulemaking notice). It follows logically that no further control of 
additional precursors is necessary. Accordingly, EPA does not view the 
January 4, 2013 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court as precluding 
redesignation of the Baltimore Area to attainment for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. In summary, even if, prior to the 
date of the redesignation request submittal, the State was required to 
address precursors for the Baltimore 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 Baltimore Area 
had met all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation in 
accordance with section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans for California--San Joaquin Valley PM10 
Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-
Hour and Annual PM10 Standards,'' (69 FR 30006, May 26, 
2004) (approving a PM10 attainment plan that impose 
controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and 
did not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or ammonia 
emissions).
    \11\ See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA et al., 423 
F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. EPA's Analysis of Maryland's SIP Submittal

    EPA is proposing several rulemaking actions for the Baltimore Area: 
(1) To redesignate the Area to attainment for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) to approve into the Maryland SIP the 
associated maintenance plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; 
and, (3) to approve the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and 
NOX MVEBs for the Baltimore Area for transportation 
conformity purposes. EPA's proposed approval of the redesignation 
request and maintenance plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 
is based upon EPA's determination that the Area continues to attain the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and that all other redesignation 
criteria have been met for the Baltimore Area. The following is a 
description of how the December 12, 2013 Maryland submittal satisfies 
the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS.

A. Redesignation Request

1. Attainment
    EPA has previously determined that the Baltimore Area has attained 
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. As noted earlier, on May 22, 
2012 (77 FR 30208), EPA determined that the Baltimore Area

[[Page 59711]]

had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, based on 2007-
2009 and 2008-2010 quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified 
ambient air quality monitoring data. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.2004(c), 
this ``clean data'' determination for the Area suspended the 
requirements for the State to submit an attainment demonstration and 
associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning 
SIPs related to the attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 
NAAQS until the Area is redesignated to attainment for the standard or 
EPA determines that the Area has again violated the standard, at which 
time such plans are required to be submitted. EPA also determined in 
the May 22, 2012 rulemaking, that the Baltimore Area had attained the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its statutory attainment date of 
April 5, 2010. The basis and effect of the determination of attainment 
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS was discussed in the 
proposed (76 FR 72374, November 23, 2011) and final rulemaking notice 
(77 FR 30208, May 22, 2012).
    Maryland's redesignation request submittal included the historic 
monitoring data for the annual PM2.5 monitoring sites in the 
Baltimore Area. The historic monitoring data shows that the Baltimore 
Area has attained and continues to attain the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. MDE assures that all PM2.5 
monitoring data for the Baltimore Area has been quality-assured, 
quality-controlled, and certified by the State in accordance with 40 
CFR 58.10. Furthermore, EPA has thoroughly reviewed the most recent 
ambient air quality monitoring data for PM2.5 in the Area, 
as submitted by the State and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System 
(AQS). The PM2.5 quality-assured, quality-controlled, and 
state-certified 2009-2012 air quality data shows that the Baltimore 
Area continues to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 
Area's PM2.5 annual design values for the 2009-2011, and 
2010-2012 monitoring periods as well as preliminary data for 2013 are 
provided in Table 1.

                  Table 1--Design Values in the Baltimore Area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Annual design value (in [mu]g/m\3\)
             Monitor ID                    Monitor location      -----------------------------------------------
                                                                     2009-2011       2010-2012       2011-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-003-1003........................  Glen Burnie, Anne Arundel              10.9            10.7            10.0
                                      County.
24-005-1007........................  Padonia, Baltimore County..            10.1             9.6             9.0
24-005-3001........................  Essex, Baltimore County....            11.1            11.0            10.3
24-025-1001........................  Edgewood, Harford County...             9.8            10.3            10.3
24-510-0006........................  Baltimore City.............            10.0            10.0             9.9
24-510-0007........................  Baltimore City.............            10.2             9.9             9.3
24-510-0008........................  Baltimore City.............            10.9            10.4             9.9
24-510-0040........................  Baltimore City.............            11.3            11.1            10.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Baltimore Area's recent monitoring data supports EPA's previous 
determinations that the Area has attained the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, as discussed subsequently with 
respect to the Baltimore Area's maintenance plan, the State has 
committed to continue monitoring ambient PM2.5 
concentrations in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. Thus, EPA is 
proposing to determine that the Baltimore Area continues to attain the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
2. The State Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and 
Subpart 1 of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) 
of the CAA
    In accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA, the SIP 
revisions for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the Baltimore 
Area must be fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA and all the 
requirements applicable to the Baltimore Area under section 110 of the 
CAA (general SIP requirements) and part D of Title I of the CAA (SIP 
requirements for nonattainment areas) must be met.
a. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general 
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations 
and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the 
establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect 
data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations. 
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section 
110(a)(2) of the CAA include, but are not limited to the following: (1) 
Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable 
public notice and hearing; (2) provisions for establishment and 
operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air 
quality; (3) implementation of a source permit program; provisions for 
the implementation of Part C requirements (PSD); (4) provisions for the 
implementation of Part D requirements for NSR permit programs; (5) 
provisions for air pollution modeling; and, (6) provisions for public 
and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule 
development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain certain 
measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing 
to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, 
EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the 
interstate transport of air pollutants in accordance with the 
NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998), amendments to 
the NOX SIP Call (64 FR 26298, May 14, 1999 and 65 FR 11222, 
March 2, 2000), and CAIR (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005). However, section 
110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requirements for a state are not linked with a 
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that 
state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular 
nonattainment area's designation and classifications 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, EPA does not believe that these requirements 
are applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
    In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110(a)(2) elements 
of the CAA which are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions 
and not linked with an area's attainment

[[Page 59712]]

status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. 
The Baltimore Area will still be subject to these requirements after it 
is redesignated. EPA concludes that section 110(a)(2) of the CAA and 
part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's 
designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in 
reviewing a redesignation request, and that section 110(a)(2) elements 
of the CAA not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not 
applicable for purposes of redesignation. This approach is consistent 
with EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for 
redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement. See Reading, 
Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 10, 
1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final 
rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida final 
rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on 
this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 
2000) and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania redesignation (66 FR 53099, 
October 19, 2001).
    EPA has reviewed the Maryland SIP and has concluded that it meets 
the general SIP requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA to the 
extent they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA has 
previously approved provisions of Maryland's SIP addressing section 
110(a)(2) requirements, including provisions addressing 
PM2.5. See 76 FR 72624, November 25, 2011. These 
requirements are, however, statewide requirements that are not linked 
to the PM2.5 nonattainment status of the Baltimore Area. 
Therefore, EPA believes that these SIP elements are not applicable 
requirements for purposes of review of Maryland's PM2.5 
redesignation request.
b. Subpart 1 Requirements
    Subpart 1 sets forth the basic nonattainment plan requirements 
applicable to PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Under section 172 
of the CAA, states with nonattainment areas must submit plans providing 
for timely attainment and meet a variety of other requirements. The 
General Preamble for Implementation of Title I discusses the evaluation 
of these requirements in the context of EPA's consideration of a 
redesignation request. The General Preamble sets forth EPA's view of 
applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation 
requests when an area is attaining the standard. See 57 FR 13498, April 
16, 1992.
    As noted previously, EPA has determined that the Baltimore Area has 
attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Pursuant to 40 CFR 
51.2004(c), the requirement for Maryland to submit, for the Baltimore 
Area, an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, an RFP plan, 
contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to the attainment 
of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS are suspended until the Area 
is redesignated to attainment for the standard, or EPA determines that 
the Area again violated the standard, at which time such plans are 
required to be submitted. Since the Baltimore Area has attained the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and continues to attain the 
standard, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment. 
Therefore, the requirements of sections 172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), 
172(c)(6), and 172(c)(9) of the CAA are no longer considered to be 
applicable for purposes of redesignation of the Baltimore Area for the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    The requirement under section 172(c)(3) was not suspended by EPA's 
clean data determination for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 
and is the only remaining requirement under section 172 of the CAA to 
be considered for purposes of redesignation of the Baltimore Area. 
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires submission and approval of a 
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions.
    On December 10, 2012 (77 FR 73313), EPA approved a 2002 emissions 
inventory for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the Baltimore 
Area. The emissions inventory, submitted by Maryland on June 8, 2008 
along with the Baltimore Area attainment plan for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS, was submitted to meet the requirements of 
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. The 2002 comprehensive emissions 
inventory for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard submitted by 
the State included emissions estimates that cover the general source 
categories of point sources, area sources, onroad mobile sources, and 
nonroad mobile sources for the Baltimore Area. The pollutants that 
comprise the State's 2002 emissions inventory for the Baltimore Area 
are PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC, and ammonia 
(NH3). An evaluation of the 2002 comprehensive emissions 
inventory for the Baltimore Area is provided in the TSD prepared by EPA 
for that separate rulemaking action. See Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2010-0143.
    Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires the identification and 
quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified 
stationary sources in an area, and section 172(c)(5) of the CAA 
requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and 
modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. 
EPA has determined that, since the PSD requirements will apply after 
redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the 
requirement that a nonattainment NSR program be approved prior to 
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the 
NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is 
described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994 entitled, ``Part D New 
Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to 
Attainment.'' Maryland's PSD program for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS will become effective in the Baltimore Area upon 
redesignation to attainment. See (77 FR 45949, August 2, 2012) 
(approving revisions to Maryland's PSD program).
    Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires the SIP to meet the 
applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. As noted 
previously, EPA believes the Maryland SIP meets the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA that are applicable for purposes of 
redesignation.
    Section 175A of the CAA requires a state seeking redesignation to 
attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of 
the NAAQS in the area ``for at least 10 years after the 
redesignation.'' In conjunction with its request to redesignate the 
Baltimore Area to attainment status, Maryland submitted a SIP revision 
to provide for maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 
the Baltimore Area through 2025, which is at least 10 years after 
redesignation. Maryland is requesting that EPA approve this SIP 
revision as meeting the requirement of section 175A of the CAA. Once 
approved, the Baltimore Area maintenance plan will ensure that the SIP 
for Maryland meets the requirements of the CAA regarding maintenance of 
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the Area. EPA's analysis of 
the maintenance plan is provided in section V.B (Maintenance Plan) of 
this document.
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and 
procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects 
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The 
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, 
programs, and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 of 
the United States Code

[[Page 59713]]

(U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as 
well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (general 
conformity). State transportation conformity SIP revisions must be 
consistent with Federal conformity regulations relating to 
consultation, enforcement and enforceability which EPA promulgated 
pursuant to its authority under the CAA. EPA interprets the conformity 
SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the 
redesignation request under section 107(d) of the CAA because state 
conformity rules are still required after redesignation and Federal 
conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See 
Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding this 
interpretation). See also (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995) (discussing 
Tampa, Florida).
    Thus, for purposes of redesignating the Baltimore Area to 
attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA determines 
that the Area has meet all applicable SIP requirements under part D of 
Title I of the CAA.
c. Maryland Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of 
the CAA
    EPA has fully approved all applicable requirements of the Maryland 
SIP for the Baltimore Area for purposes of redesignaton to attainment 
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with section 
110(k) of the CAA.
3. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, section 
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA requires EPA to determine that the air 
quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable 
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and 
applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other 
permanent and enforceable reductions. Maryland's redesignation request 
indicates that a variety of federal vehicle control programs have 
created emission reductions that contributed to attainment in 2007. In 
making this demonstration, Maryland has calculated the change in 
emissions for the on-road sector between 2002, one of the years used to 
designate the Area as nonattainment, and 2007, one of the years the 
Area monitored attainment, as shown in Table 2.

 Table 2--Comparison of 2002 Nonattainment Year and 2007 Attainment Year Reductions for On Road Emissions in the
                                              Baltimore Area (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2002            2007          Decrease
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2.............................................................        2,025.51          385.34        1,640.17
NOX.............................................................       76,060.01       49,140.12       26,219.89
PM2.5...........................................................        2,344.86        1,789.28          555.52
VOC.............................................................       28,060.25       19,998.51        8,061.74
NH3.............................................................        1,402.09           91.77       1,310. 32
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................      109,892.72       71,405.02       37,787.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reduction in emissions and the corresponding improvement in air 
quality from 2002 to 2007 in the Baltimore Area can be attributed to a 
number of regulatory control measures that have been implemented in the 
Baltimore Area and contributing areas in recent years. An evaluation of 
the State's 2002 comprehensive emissions inventory for the Baltimore 
Area is provided in the TSD prepared by EPA for the December 7, 2012 
rulemaking action approving the base year inventory. See Docket ID No. 
EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0143. An evaluation of the 2007 emissions inventory is 
provided in EPA's emissions inventory TSD dated July 23, 2014, which is 
available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action.
a. Federal Measures Implemented
    Reductions in PM2.5 precursor emissions have occurred 
statewide and in upwind states as a result of Federal emission control 
measures, with additional emission reductions expected to occur in the 
future. The Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur 
Standards (Tier 2 Standards) have resulted in lower NOX and 
SO2 emissions from all new passenger vehicles, including 
sport utility vehicles, minivans, vans, and pick-up trucks. The Federal 
rules were phased in between 2004 and 2009. EPA has estimated that, 
after phasing in the new requirements, new vehicles emit less 
NOX in the following percentages: Passenger cars (light duty 
vehicles)--77 percent; light duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility 
vehicles--86 percent; and larger sports utility vehicles, vans, and 
heavier trucks--69-95 percent. EPA expects fleet wide average emissions 
to decline by similar percentages as new vehicles replace older 
vehicles. The Tier 2 standards also reduced the sulfur content of 
gasoline to 30 parts per million (ppm) beginning in January 2006, which 
reflects up to a 90 percent reduction in sulfur content.
    EPA issued the Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule in July 2000. This 
rule includes standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel, 
which went into effect in 2004. A second phase took effect in 2007 
which reduced PM2.5 emissions from heavy-duty highway 
engines and further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 
15 ppm. The total program is estimated to achieve a 90 percent 
reduction in direct PM2.5 emissions and a 95 percent 
reduction in NOX emissions for these new engines using low 
sulfur diesel, compared to existing engines using higher sulfur diesel 
fuel. The reduction in fuel sulfur content also yielded an immediate 
reduction in particulate sulfate emissions from all diesel vehicles.
    On June 29, 2004 (69 FR 38958), EPA promulgated the Nonroad Diesel 
Rule for large nonroad diesel engines, such as those used in 
construction, agriculture, and mining, to be phased in between 2008 and 
2014. The rule phased in requirements for reducing the sulfur content 
of diesel used in nonroad diesel engines. The reduction in sulfur 
content prevents damage to the more advanced emission control systems 
needed to meet the engine standards. It will also reduce fine 
particulate emissions from diesel engines. The rule also reduces the 
sulfur content in nonroad diesel fuel by over 99%. Prior to 2006, 
nonroad diesel fuel averaged approximately 3,400 ppm sulfur. Starting 
in 2007, this rule limited nonroad diesel sulfur content to 500 ppm, 
with a further reduction to 15 ppm in 2010. The combined engine 
standards and the sulfur in fuel reductions will reduce NOX 
and PM emissions from large nonroad engines by over 90%,

[[Page 59714]]

compared to current nonroad engines using higher sulfur content diesel.
    In November 2002, EPA promulgated emission standards for groups of 
previously unregulated nonroad engines. These engines include large 
spark-ignition engines such as those used in forklifts, airport ground 
service equipment, and farm and construction 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 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 the entire nonroad spark-
ignition engine and recreational engine standards, an 80% reduction in 
NOX is expected by 2020.

B. Maintenance Plan

    On December 12, 2013, MDE submitted a maintenance plan for the 
Baltimore Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to 
section 175A of the CAA. EPA's analysis for proposing approval of the 
maintenance plan is provided in this section.
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    Section 172(c)(3) requires states to submit a comprehensive, 
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources in the 
nonattainment area. For a maintenance plan, states are required to 
submit an inventory to identify the level of emissions in the area 
which is sufficient to attain the NAAQS, referred to as the attainment 
inventory (or the maintenance plan base year inventory), and which 
should be based on actual emissions. MDE submitted an attainment 
inventory for 2007, one of the years in the period during which the 
Baltimore Area monitored attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 
standard. The attainment inventory is comprised of NOX, 
PM2.5, SO2, VOC, and NH3 emissions 
from point sources, nonpoint sources, onroad mobile sources, and 
nonroad mobile sources.
    For the 2007 emissions inventory for point, nonpoint, and nonroad 
source categories, MDE submitted the 2007 Version 3 emissions inventory 
developed through the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association 
(MARAMA) regional planning process. Details related to the development 
of the 2007 emissions inventory can be found in the January 23, 2012 
MARAMA TSD entitled ``Technical Support Document for the Development of 
the 2007 Emissions Inventory for the Regional Air Quality Modeling in 
the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Region Version 3.3'', which may be found in 
Appendix D of the State's submittal, and is available in the docket for 
this proposed rulemaking action.
    The 2007 point source inventory includes emissions from EGUs and 
non-EGU sources as developed by MARAMA in consultation with MDE. The 
nonpoint source emissions inventory for 2007 was developed using 2007 
specific activity data along with EPA emission factors and the most 
recently available emission calculation methodologies. The 2007 nonroad 
mobile source emissions was generated using EPA's National Mobile 
Inventory Model (NMIM) 2008, which used the NONROAD 2008a emissions 
model. Since marine, air and rail/locomotive (MAR) emissions are not 
part of the NONROAD model, they were calculated separately outside of 
the NONROAD model using the most recent methodologies and inputs.
    The 2007 onroad mobile source inventory was developed by using 
EPA's highway mobile source emissions model MOVES2010a. A mix of 
default and local data was used to develop the inventory. The 2007 
onroad emissions inventory, including a summary of the methodology and 
data assumptions used for the analysis may be found in Appendix F of 
the State's submittal, which is available in the docket for this 
proposed rulemaking action.
    EPA has reviewed the documentation provided by MDE and found the 
emissions inventory to be approvable. For more information on the 2007 
inventory submitted by MDE and EPA's analysis of the inventory, see 
Appendix A of the State's submittal and EPA's emissions inventory TSD 
dated July 23, 2014, both of which are available in the docket for this 
proposed rulemaking action.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
    Section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment 
to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in 
the area ``for at least 10 years after the redesignation.'' EPA has 
interpreted this as a showing of maintenance ``for a period of ten 
years following redesignation.'' Where the emissions inventory method 
of showing maintenance is used, its purpose is to show that emissions 
during the maintenance period will not increase over the attainment 
year inventory. See 1992 Calcagni Memorandum, pages 9-10.
    For a demonstration of maintenance, emissions inventories are 
required to be projected to future dates to assess the influence of 
future growth and controls; however, the maintenance demonstration need 
not be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, 
supra. See also 66 FR 53099-53100; 68 FR 25430-32. The measures 
described in subsection A.3 of section V (Permanent and Enforceable 
Reductions in Emissions) of this proposed rulemaking action achieved 
the reduction in emissions from point, area, and mobile sources in the 
Area that led to attainment in 2007, and will continue through 2025. In 
addition, some of the nonroad and on-road measures that helped the Area 
attain the standard in 2007 have requirements which became applicable 
after 2007, and will help maintain the standard during the 10 year 
maintenance period. In addition to the measures described in subsection 
A.3 of section V, Maryland's Healthy Air Act (HAA) regulation will help 
to ensure the continuing decline of SO2 and NOX 
emissions in the Area during the maintenance period and beyond. 
Maryland's HAA regulation requires emission reductions of 
NOX and SO2 from large coal-fired power plants in 
Maryland, and will limit emissions from the Brandon Shores, Herbert A. 
Wagner, and C.P. Crane Generating Stations, all of which are located in 
the Baltimore Area. See 73 FR 51599, September 4, 2008 (approving 
Maryland's HAA regulation into the Maryland SIP). The HAA was phased in 
starting in 2009 with a second phase that started in 2012. At full 
implementation, the HAA will reduce NOX and SO2 
emissions from affected units by 65 percent and 80 percent, 
respectively, from 2002 levels.
    To show that the Baltimore Area will remain in attainment, MDE uses 
projection inventories derived by applying appropriate growth and 
control factors to the 2007 attainment year emissions inventory. MDE 
developed projection inventories for an interim year of 2017 and a 
maintenance plan end year of 2025 to show that future emissions of 
SO2, NOX, PM2.5, VOC, and 
NH3, will remain at or below the 2007 emissions levels 
throughout the Baltimore Area through the year 2025.
    For EGU emissions, the Department of Energy 2011 Annual Energy 
Outlook growth factors, delineated by region and fuel, were used to 
develop the projected EGU emissions. Non-EGU emissions were developed 
using employment projections and other state specific

[[Page 59715]]

emission data. Nonpoint emissions for 2017 and 2025 were developed by 
applying the appropriate growth and control factors to the 2007 
inventory. Nonroad source emissions for 2017 and 2025 were developed 
using growth factors from EPA's NMIM2008 model. On-road emissions for 
2017 and 2025 were developed using EPA's MOVES2010a mobile source 
inventory model.
    EPA has determined that the emissions inventories discussed above 
as provided by MDE are approvable. For detailed information on the 
projected inventories, see Appendices B and C of the State submittal, 
and for more information on EPA's analysis of the emissions inventory, 
see EPA's emissions inventory TSD dated July 23, 2014, all of which are 
available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action. Table 3 
shows the inventories for the 2007 attainment year, the 2017 interim 
year, and the 2025 maintenance plan end year for the Baltimore Area.

 Table 3--Comparision of 2007 Attainment Year Inventory With 2017 and 2025 Projected Emissions in the Baltimore
                                                   Area (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Change from     Change from
                                       2007            2017            2025          2007-2017       2007-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2.............................         103,510          24,714          24,620          78,796          78,890
NOX.............................         116,595          69,258          58,249          47,337          58,346
PM2.5...........................          19,005          16,374          16,205           2,631           2,800
VOC.............................          64,416          46,800          44,302          17,616          20,114
NH3.............................           4,117           3,905           3,930             212             187
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................         307,643         161,051         147,305         146,592         160,337
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 shows that between 2007 and 2017, the Baltimore Area is 
projected to reduce SO2 emissions by 76.1 percent, 
NOX emissions by 40.6 percent, PM2.5 emissions by 
13.8 percent, NH3 by 5.1 percent, and VOC by 27.3 percent. 
Between 2007 and 2025, the Baltimore Area is projected to reduce 
SO2 emissions by 76.2 percent, NOX emissions by 
50.0 percent, PM2.5 emissions by 14.7 percent, 
NH3 by 4.5 percent and VOC by 31.2 percent. The projected 
emissions inventories show that the Baltimore Area will continue to 
maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS during the 10 year 
maintenance period.
3. Monitoring Network
    There are eight PM2.5 monitors in the Baltimore Area. 
EPA has determined that Maryland's maintenance plan includes a 
commitment to continue to operate its EPA-approved monitoring network, 
as necessary to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. The 
Baltimore Area maintenance plan includes the State's commitment to 
continue to operate and maintain its PM2.5 air quality 
monitoring network, consistent with EPA's monitoring requirements, as 
necessary to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. In its December 12, 2013 submittal, Maryland 
states that it will consult with EPA prior to making any necessary 
changes to the network and will continue to quality assure the 
monitoring data in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
    To provide for tracking of the emission levels in the Baltimore 
Area, MDE will periodically update the emissions inventory, consisting 
of annual and periodic evaluations. Annual emissions updates of 
stationary sources, the Highway Performance Monitoring System vehicle 
miles travelled data reported to the Federal Highway Administration, 
and other growth indicators, which will be compared to the growth 
assumptions to determine if the projected growth and observed growth 
are consistent. MDE will also submit comprehensive tracking inventories 
to EPA every three years as required by EPA's Air Emissions Reporting 
Requirements (AERR) or as required by other federal regulations during 
the maintenance plan period.
5. Contingency Measures
    The contingency plan provisions for maintenance plans are designed 
to promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after 
redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan 
include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to ensure that 
a state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs 
after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the events 
that would ``trigger'' the adoption and implementation of a contingency 
measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and 
implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the 
state would adopt and implement the measure(s).
    Maryland's maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the 
adoption and implementation of contingency measures to further reduce 
emissions should a violation occur. These procedures would be triggered 
in one of three situations: (1) When the annual actual emissions of 
SO2, NOX, or PM2.5 exceed the 
attainment year inventories that are identified in Table 3, (2) when 
there is an annual exceedance (annual average for one year at a federal 
reference method monitor located in the Baltimore Area) of 15.0 [mu]g/
m\3\; or, (3) When there is any violation (three year average of the 
annual average at a federal reference method monitor located in the 
Baltimore Area) of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ or greater.
    If any future year emissions inventory indicates that the Baltimore 
Area's total emissions of SO2, NOX, or 
PM2.5 exceeds the attainment year levels, MDE would first 
perform an audit to determine if inventory refinements are needed, 
including a review of whether appropriate models, control strategies, 
monitoring strategies, planning assumptions, industrial throughput, and 
production data were used in the attainment year and future year 
projections. If the audit does not reconcile the emissions exceedances, 
MDE will implement one or more of the contingency measures identified 
in the plan. If an annual exceedance of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ occurs, MDE 
commits to implementing one of the contingency measures identified for 
additional emission reductions, and if a violation occurs, MDE commits 
to implementing two or more of the contingency measures to correct the 
violation.
    As explained in greater detail in the Baltimore Area maintenance 
plan, the candidate contingency measures include the following: (1) 
PM2.5 RACM determinations; (2) NOX RACM 
determination; (3) Non Road diesel emission reduction strategies; (4) 
low

[[Page 59716]]

sulfur home heating oil requirements; (5) alternative fuel and diesel 
retrofit programs for fleet vehicle operations; and, (6) wet 
suppression upgrade requirements for concrete manufacturing. EPA finds 
that the Baltimore Area maintenance plan includes appropriate 
contingency measures as necessary to ensure MDE will promptly correct 
any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. Finally, 
the maintenance plan establishes a schedule for implementation of 
contingency measures if needed, and MDE has committed to full 
implementation of contingency measures or programs within 24 months 
after notification by EPA that contingency measures must be implemented 
or 27 months after quality assured data indicates an exceedance or 
violation has occurred. For all of the reasons discussed above, EPA is 
proposing to approve the 1997 annual PM2.5 maintenance plan 
for the Baltimore Area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of 
the CAA.

C. Transportation Conformity

    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires Federal actions in nonattainment 
and maintenance areas to ``conform to'' the goals of SIPs. This means 
that such actions will not cause or contribute to violations of a 
NAAQS, worsen the severity of an existing violation, or delay timely 
attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone. Actions involving 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration 
(FTA) funding or approval are subject to the transportation conformity 
rule (40 CFR Part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, metropolitan 
planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas 
coordinate with state air quality and transportation agencies, EPA, and 
the FHWA and FTA to demonstrate that their long range transportation 
plans and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to 
applicable SIPs. This is typically determined by showing that estimated 
emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are 
less than or equal to the MVEBs contained in the SIP.
    On December 12, 2013, Maryland submitted a SIP revision that 
contains the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX onroad 
mobile source budgets for the Baltimore Area. Maryland did not provide 
emission budgets for SO2, VOC, and NH3 because it 
concluded, consistent with the presumptions regarding these precursors 
in the Transportation Conformity Rule at 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v), which 
predated and was not disturbed by the litigation on the 1997 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule, that emissions of these 
precursors from motor vehicles are not significant contributors to the 
Area's PM2.5 air quality problem. EPA issued conformity 
regulations to implement the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in July 
2004 and May 2005 (69 FR 40004, July 1, 2004 and 70 FR 24280, May 6, 
2005). Those actions were not part of the final rule remanded to EPA by 
the D.C. Circuit Court in NRDC v. EPA, No. 08-1250 (January 4, 2013), 
in which the D.C. Circuit Court remanded to EPA the 1997 
PM2.5 Implementation Rule because it concluded that EPA must 
implement that NAAQS pursuant to the PM-specific implementation 
provisions of subpart 4, rather than solely under the general 
provisions of subpart 1. That decision does not affect EPA's proposed 
approval of the MVEBs for the Baltimore Area. The MVEBs are presented 
in Table 4.

 Table 4--MVEBs for Baltimore Area, Maryland for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in
                                   tpy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                         PM2.5            NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017....................................        1,218.60       29,892.01
2025....................................        1,051.39       21,594.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of MVEBs are 
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Additionally, to approve the MVEBs, EPA 
must complete a thorough review of the SIP, in this case the 
PM2.5 maintenance plan, and conclude that with the projected 
level of motor vehicle and all other emissions, the SIP will achieve 
its overall purpose, in this case providing for maintenance of the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA's process for determining adequacy 
of a MVEB consists of three basic steps: (1) Providing public 
notification of a SIP submission; (2) providing the public the 
opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a public comment period; and, 
(3) EPA taking action on the MVEB.
    On April 30, 2014, EPA initiated an adequacy review of the MVEBs 
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS that Maryland included in 
its redesignation request submittal. As such, a notice of the 
submission of these MVEBs were posted on the adequacy Web site (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm). The public 
comment period closed on May 30, 2014. There were no public comments 
received. EPA is acting on making the adequacy finding final through a 
separate notice of adequacy. EPA has reviewed the MVEBs and found them 
consistent with the maintenance plan and found that the budgets meet 
the criteria for adequacy and approval. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
approve the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for 
the Baltimore Area for transportation conformity purposes. Additional 
information pertaining to the review of the MVEBs can be found in the 
transportation conformity TSD dated May 20, 2014, available in the 
docket for this proposed rulemaking action.

VI. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to approve the request submitted by Maryland to 
redesignate the Baltimore Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has evaluated the State's 
redesignation request and determined that it meets the redesignation 
criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for the 1997 
annual PM2.5 standard. The monitoring data demonstrates that 
the Baltimore Area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 
and, for the reasons discussed previously, that it will continue to 
attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to 
approve the maintenance plan for the Baltimore Area as a revision to 
the Maryland SIP for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard because 
the plan meets the requirements of CAA section 175A for the standard, 
as described previously in this proposed rulemaking notice. In 
addition, EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 and 2025 
PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Baltimore Area for 
transportation conformity purposes. Final approval of the redesignation 
request would change the official designation of the Baltimore Area 
from nonattainment to attainment as found at 40 CFR part 81, for the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and would incorporate into the 
Maryland SIP the maintenance plan ensuring continued attainment of the 
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area for 10 years after 
redesignation. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues 
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before 
taking final action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does

[[Page 59717]]

not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
For that reason, this proposed action:
     is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule proposing to approve Maryland's 
redesignation request, associated maintenance plan, and MVEBs for 
transportation conformity purposes for the Baltimore Area for the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

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

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

    Dated: September 15, 2014.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2014-23638 Filed 10-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P