Air Plan Approval; District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; Maryland and Virginia Redesignation Requests and District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia Maintenance Plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 2008 Ozone Standard Nonattainment Area, 15108-15119 [2019-06128]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
15108
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
period during which a benefit is (or is
assumed to be) in pay status and 4.00
percent during any years preceding the
benefit’s placement in pay status. In
comparison with the interest
assumptions in effect for April 2019,
these assumptions represent a decrease
of 0.25 percent in the immediate rate
and are otherwise unchanged.
PBGC updates appendices B and C
each month. PBGC has determined that
notice and public comment on this
amendment are impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. This
finding is based on the need to issue
new interest assumptions promptly so
that they are available for plans that rely
on our publication of them each month
to calculate lump sum benefit amounts.
Rate set
*
Because of the need to provide
immediate guidance for the payment of
benefits under plans with valuation
dates during May 2019, PBGC finds that
good cause exists for making the
assumptions set forth in this
amendment effective less than 30 days
after publication. PBGC has determined
that this action is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under the criteria set
forth in Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed
rulemaking is required for this
amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C.
601(2).
On or after
Before
Immediate
annuity rate
(percent)
*
*
6–1–19
1.00
307
5–1–19
3. In appendix C to part 4022, rate set
307 is added at the end of the table to
read as follows:
■
*
*
*
*
On or after
Before
Immediate
annuity rate
(percent)
*
*
6–1–19
1.00
5–1–19
Issued in Washington, DC.
Hilary Duke,
Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory
Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2019–07279 Filed 4–12–19; 8:45 am]
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
*
i2
i3
4.00
*
4.00
4.00
*
*
n1
*
n2
*
7
8
n1
n2
*
Deferred annuities
(percent)
i1
i2
i3
4.00
*
4.00
4.00
*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215; FRL–9991–44Region 3]
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving the requests
from the State of Maryland (Maryland)
SUMMARY:
Jkt 247001
*
i1
Air Plan Approval; District of
Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia;
Maryland and Virginia Redesignation
Requests and District of Columbia,
Maryland, and Virginia Maintenance
Plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA
2008 Ozone Standard Nonattainment
Area
16:31 Apr 12, 2019
2. In appendix B to part 4022, rate set
307 is added at the end of the table to
read as follows:
■
*
BILLING CODE 7709–02–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b,
1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
Deferred annuities
(percent)
*
For plans with a valuation
date
307
1. The authority citation for part 4022
continues to read as follows:
■
Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum
Interest Rates for Private-Sector
Payments
*
Rate set
PART 4022—BENEFITS PAYABLE IN
TERMINATED SINGLE-EMPLOYER
PLANS
Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum
Interest Rates for PBGC Payments
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4022
Employee benefit plans, Pension
insurance, Pensions, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For plans with a valuation
date
In consideration of the foregoing, 29
CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
7
8
and the Commonwealth of Virginia
(Virginia) to redesignate to attainment
their respective portions of the
Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment
area (hereafter ‘‘the Washington Area’’
or ‘‘the Area’’) for the 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS or standard) (also referred to as
the 2008 ozone NAAQS) as Maryland’s
and Virginia’s portions of the Area meet
the statutory requirements for
redesignation under the Clean Air Act
(CAA). EPA is therefore redesignating
the following jurisdictions to attainment
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS: The
Counties of Calvert, Charles, Frederick,
Montgomery, and Prince George’s in
Maryland as well as the Counties of
Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince
William and the Cities of Alexandria,
Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and
Manassas Park in Virginia. EPA is also
approving, as a revision to District of
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
Columbia’s (the District), Maryland’s,
and Virginia’s state implementation
plans (SIPs), the joint Washington Area
maintenance plan submitted by the
District, Maryland, and Virginia, which
demonstrates maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS through 2030 in the
Washington Area. The Washington Area
maintenance plan includes motor
vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS for nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), which are
precursors to ozone. EPA has found the
MVEBs adequate and is approving, as a
SIP revision, these 2014, 2025, and 2030
NOX and VOC MVEBs for the
Washington Area.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
May 15, 2019.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., confidential business
information (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 through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara
Calcinore, (215) 814–2043, or by email
at calcinore.sara@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On May 21, 2012 and June 11, 2012,
EPA designated nonattainment areas for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 77 FR 30088
and 77 FR 34221. Effective July 20,
2012, the Washington Area was
designated as marginal nonattainment
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The
Washington Area consists of the
Counties of Calvert, Charles, Frederick,
Montgomery, and Prince George’s in
Maryland, the Counties of Arlington,
Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William
and the Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax,
Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas
Park in Virginia, and the District of
Columbia. See 40 CFR 81.309, 81.321,
and 81.347.
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA
allows redesignation of an area to
attainment of the NAAQS provided that:
(1) The Administrator (EPA) determines
that the area has attained the applicable
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Apr 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
15109
NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully
approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under
section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the
Administrator determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP,
applicable Federal air pollutant control
regulations, and other permanent and
enforceable emission reductions; (4) the
Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section
175A of the CAA; and (5) the State
containing the area has met all
requirements applicable to the area for
purposes of redesignation under section
110 and part D of the CAA.1
On March 12, 2018, February 5, 2018,
and January 3, 2018, the District,
Maryland, and Virginia, respectively,
formally submitted requests to
redesignate their portions of the
Washington Area from marginal
nonattainment to attainment for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.2 Concurrently, the
District, Maryland, and Virginia
formally submitted, as revisions to their
respective SIPs, a joint maintenance
plan prepared by the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments
(MWCOG) for the Washington Area to
ensure continued attainment for at least
10 years following redesignation. The
maintenance plan includes MVEBs for
NOX and VOC for the years 2014, 2025,
and 2030.
On August 8, 2018 (83 FR 39019),
EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the District,
Maryland, and Virginia. In the NPRM,
EPA proposed approval of Maryland’s
and Virginia’s requests to redesignate to
attainment their respective portions of
the Washington Area, pursuant to CAA
section 107(d)(3).3 EPA did not propose
approval of the redesignation request for
the District’s portion of the Washington
Area and will address the District’s
redesignation request for its portion of
the Area in a separate rulemaking
action. EPA also proposed to approve,
as a revision to the District’s,
Maryland’s, and Virginia’s SIPs, the
joint maintenance plan submitted by the
District, Maryland, and Virginia that
demonstrates maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS through 2030 in the
Washington Area. Additionally, EPA
proposed to approve, as revisions to the
District’s, Maryland’s, and Virginia’s
SIPs, the 2014, 2025, and 2030 MVEBs
for NOX and VOC for the Washington
Area identified in the Washington Area
maintenance plan.
1 The following EPA guidance documents are
included in the docket for this rulemaking available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID:
EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215: ‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992 (the ‘‘Calcagni memorandum’’)
and ‘‘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 H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation,
September 17, 1993 (the ‘‘Shapiro memorandum’’).
2 In the August 8, 2018 NPRM (83 FR 39019), EPA
incorrectly stated that Maryland’s request to
redesignate its portion of the Washington Area was
submitted on January 29, 2018. Maryland’s
redesignation request and corresponding
maintenance plan were submitted February 5, 2018.
3 As stated previously, Maryland’s portion of the
Washington Area consists of the Counties of
Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and
Prince George’s. Virginia’s portion of the
Washington Area consists of Counties of Arlington,
Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William and the
Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church,
Manassas, and Manassas Park in Virginia. In the
August 8, 2018 NPRM, EPA proposed to redesignate
these areas to attainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
4 The adequacy comment period for the MVEBs
began on May 21, 2018, with EPA’s posting of the
availability of the District’s, Maryland’s, and
Virginia’s maintenance plan submittal on EPA’s
Adequacy website (at https://www.epa.gov/stateand-local-transportation). The adequacy comment
period for these MVEBs ended on June 20, 2018.
EPA did not receive any adverse comments on this
submittal during the adequacy comment period.
EPA originally informed the District, Maryland, and
Virginia that the 2014, 2025, and 2030 MVEBs were
adequate for use in transportation conformity
analyses in letters dated July 18, 2018. EPA revised
language in these letters and sent the revised letters
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Analysis
EPA reviewed the District’s,
Maryland’s, and Virginia’s redesignation
requests and found that Maryland’s and
Virginia’s portions of the Washington
Area have satisfied the requirements for
redesignation pursuant to CAA section
107(d)(3)(E). As one of the criteria for
redesignation to attainment, section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA requires EPA
to determine that the area has a fully
approved maintenance plan pursuant to
section 175A of the CAA that
demonstrates continued attainment of
the NAAQS for at least 10 years
following redesignation to attainment.
EPA reviewed the joint maintenance
plan submitted by the District,
Maryland, and Virginia and found that
it satisfies the requirements of section
175A. The Washington Area
maintenance plan includes 2014, 2025,
and 2030 MVEBs for NOX and VOC for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA found the
submitted MVEBs adequate and
approvable as a revision to the District’s,
Maryland’s, and Virginia’s SIPs.4 EPA’s
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
Continued
15APR1
15110
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
rationale for these actions can be found
in the August 8, 2018 NPRM and
corresponding Technical Support
Documents (TSDs) included in the
docket for this action available online at
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA–
R03–OAR–2018–0215.
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
III. Public Comments and EPA
Response
EPA received comments on the
August 8, 2018 NPRM from four
commenters. Comments from two
anonymous commenters did not
concern any of the specific issues raised
in the NPRM, nor did they address
EPA’s rationale for the proposed
approval of Maryland’s and Virginia’s
redesignation requests or the District’s,
Maryland’s, and Virginia’s joint
maintenance plan. Therefore, EPA is not
responding to those comments. EPA
received relevant comments from two
commenters. Those comments and
EPA’s responses are discussed below.
All of the comments received and any
submitted attachments are included in
the docket for this action, available
online at www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215.
Commenter 1: On August 16, 2018,
EPA received anonymous comments on
the August 8, 2018 NPRM. The
commenter questioned how EPA can
redesignate a portion of the Washington
Area if the Area was designated as one
nonattainment area due to air quality in
the entire Area not meeting the
standard. The commenter also
questioned how the maintenance plan
for the entire Washington Area could be
approved without first redesignating the
District’s portion of the Area. The
commenter suggested that the entire
Washington Area, including the District,
be redesignated prior to the approval of
the maintenance plan.
EPA Response: Section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA, which sets forth the criteria
that must be met to redesignate a
nonattainment area, specifically
mentions redesignating a portion of a
nonattainment area. Section 107(d)(3)(E)
states that ‘‘[t]he Administrator may not
promulgate a redesignation of a
nonattainment area (or portion thereof)
to attainment unless . . .’’ five criteria
in sections 107(d)(3)(E)(i)–(v) are met.
(Emphasis added). Therefore, that
statute allows EPA to redesignate to
attainment Maryland’s and Virginia’s
portions of the Washington Area
without simultaneously redesignating
the District’s portion. See, e.g.,
to the District, Maryland, and Virginia on July 24,
2018. The original and revised letters are available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID:
EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Apr 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
Pennsylvania portion of the
Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE
nonattainment area for the 1997 Annual
and 2006 24-Hour fine particulate
matter standard, final rulemaking for
redesignation, 80 FR 22112 (April 21,
2015); Ohio portion of the YoungstownWarren-Sharon, OH-PA nonattainment
area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, final
rulemaking for redesignation, 72 FR
32190 (June 12, 2007); Indiana portion
of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN
nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, final rulemaking for
redesignation, 75 FR 26113 (May 11,
2010); and, West Virginia portion of the
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY
nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, final rulemaking for
redesignation, 71 FR 54421 (September
15, 2006).
Regarding the initial nonattainment
designation for the Area based on air
quality not meeting the standard, air
quality in the entire Area has improved,
and on November 14, 2017, EPA
determined that the entire Washington
Area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS
by the July 20, 2016 attainment date. 82
FR 52651. As discussed in the August
8, 2018 NPRM, the entire Washington
Area also continues to attain the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Because the entire Area
is in attainment, EPA received formal
requests from the District, Maryland,
and Virginia to redesignate their
respective portions of the Washington
Area to attainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. As explained in the NPRM,
EPA found that Maryland and Virginia
have satisfied the CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) requirements for
redesignation of their respective
portions of the Washington Area, so
EPA is approving Maryland’s and
Virginia’s requests and redesignating
their respective portions of the
Washington Area to attainment in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA. As stated in the NPRM, EPA
will act on the District’s redesignation
request at a later date.
The commenter also questioned how
EPA can approve the maintenance plan
for the Washington Area prior to
redesignating the District’s portion of
the Area. However, CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv) requires that in order to
redesignate an area to attainment, EPA
must first have fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area meeting
the requirements of CAA section 175A.
EPA has long interpreted that provision
to also allow for concurrent approval of
the maintenance plan or other necessary
SIP submissions. See Calcagni
memorandum at 7. Because a
maintenance plan is one of the
prerequisites in sections 107(d)(3)(E)(i)–
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(iv) for redesignation, EPA cannot
redesignate an area until the area has a
maintenance plan approved by EPA.
Furthermore, nothing in CAA sections
107(d)(3)(E) or 175A prohibits EPA from
approving a maintenance plan for an
area prior to redesignating the area, and
approving the maintenance plan into
the District’s SIP prior to redesignating
the District does not adversely impact
the District’s ability to maintain the
NAAQS and will provide for continued
maintenance in the Washington Area,
including the District, for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is
approving the maintenance plan as a
revision to the District’s, Maryland’s,
and Virginia’s SIPs.
Commenter 2: On September 7, 2018,
Earthjustice submitted comments on the
August 8, 2018 NPRM on behalf of
Sierra Club. The following is a summary
of Earthjustice’s comments and EPA’s
responses:
Comment 1: Earthjustice commented
that redesignating the Washington Area
under the 2008 ozone standard ‘‘would
authorize weaker protections against
ozone despite the fact that the area
continues to have unhealthy levels of
ozone.’’ Earthjustice noted that EPA just
designated the Washington Area as
nonattainment under the 2015 ozone
NAAQS and that the most recent 2017
design value for the Washington Area is
in violation of the 2015 standard.
Earthjustice provided Air Quality Index
(AQI) data for several days from May
2018 to August 2018 and stated that this
year, air quality monitors within the
Washington Area have ‘‘repeatedly
recorded ozone pollution levels
exceeding the level of even the 1997
standard, while far more often
exceeding the level of the 2008 and
2015 standards.’’ 5 Earthjustice stated
that, ‘‘It is inconsistent with the Act’s
[CAA] statutory design to allow
protections against the ozone pollution
that plagues the region to be weakened
via a redesignation under the 2008
ozone standard.’’
EPA Response: EPA does not agree
that redesignating the Washington Area
to attainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS will authorize weaker
protections against ozone in the area.
The August 8, 2018 NPRM proposes to
redesignate the Washington Area only
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and does not
affect the Washington Area’s
designation as marginal nonattainment
5 Earthjustice submitted AQI data from May 2,
2018, May 24, 2018, June 18, 2018, June 30, 2018,
July 3, 2018, July 9, 2018, July 10, 2018, July 16,
2018, and August 10, 2018 with their comment,
which are included in the docket for this action,
available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID:
EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215.
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
15111
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
for the more stringent 2015 ozone
NAAQS. The 2008 ozone NAAQS and
2015 ozone NAAQS are two separate
standards: Areas within states are
designated for each standard and must
satisfy the requirements applicable to
their designation for each standard.6
The redesignation of the Washington
Area from marginal nonattainment to
attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
will not change the Area’s marginal
nonattainment designation under the
2015 ozone NAAQS, nor exempt the
Area from meeting the applicable
requirements for marginal
nonattainment areas under the 2015
ozone NAAQS. Because the Washington
Area was classified as marginal
nonattainment under both the 2008 and
2015 ozone standards, the Area is
subject to the same statutory and
associated regulatory requirements in
subchapter I, Part D of the CAA under
both standards. Therefore, redesignating
the Washington Area for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS will not remove any of the
protections related to the Washington
Area’s marginal nonattainment
designation under the more stringent
2015 ozone NAAQS.
In addition, as demonstrated in the
NPRM, air quality in the Washington
Area satisfies the CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(i) requirement for
redesignation to attainment under the
2008 ozone NAAQS, which requires the
Administrator (EPA) to determine that
the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS. Therefore, in order to be
redesignated to attainment of the 2008
ozone NAAQS, the Washington Area
must, among other requirements, attain
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On November
14, 2017 (82 FR 52651), EPA determined
that the entire Washington Area attained
the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the July 20,
2016 attainment date because all of the
Washington Area monitoring sites with
valid data had design values less than
or equal to 0.075 ppm during the 2013–
2015 monitoring period. The
Washington Area continues to attain the
2008 ozone NAAQS, as shown by 2014–
2016 and 2015–2017 design values and
preliminary 2016–2018 design values
throughout the Area that continue to be
below the 0.075 ppm level of the 2008
ozone NAAQS.7
TABLE 1—WASHINGTON AREA 2014–2016, 2015–2017, AND PRELIMINARY 2016–2018 OZONE DESIGN VALUES
AQS site ID
11–001–0041 9
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
.....
11–001–0043 .......
11–001–0050 .......
24–009–0011
24–017–0010
24–021–0037
24–031–3001
.......
.......
.......
.......
24–033–0030
24–033–8003
24–033–9991
51–013–0020
51–059–0030
51–107–1005
51–153–0009
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
Site description
Annual 4th highest reading
(ppm)
Jurisdiction
420 34th Street NE, Washington, DC 20019
2500 1st Street NW, Washington, DC .........
300 Van Buren Street NW, Washington, DC
20012.
350 Stafford Road ........................................
14320 Oaks Road .........................................
Frederick County Airport ...............................
Lathrop E. Smith Environmental Education
Center.
Howard University’s Beltsville Laboratory ....
PG County Equestrian Center ......................
Powder Mill Rd Laurel, MD 20708 ...............
S 18th and Hayes St. ...................................
STA. 46–B9, Lee Park, Telegraph Road .....
38–I, Broad Run High School, Ashburn .......
James S. Long Park .....................................
2018
2016–2018
design
value
(ppm) 8
2015
................
0.068
0.069
................
0.072
0.72
0.065
0.072
0.071
0.056
0.071
0.067
0.050
0.073
0.073
0.056
0.070
0.070
0.060
0.071
0.070
0.057
0.072
0.070
....................
....................
....................
....................
0.070
0.070
0.063
0.064
0.067
0.068
0.070
0.072
0.070
0.073
0.070
0.068
0.066
0.068
0.067
0.065
0.067
0.068
0.067
0.069
0.069
0.070
0.067
0.068
0.067
0.069
0.069
0.068
0.067
0.069
0.068
0.067
Maryland ....................
Maryland ....................
Maryland ....................
Virginia .......................
Virginia .......................
Virginia .......................
Virginia .......................
0.065
0.069
0.069
0.071
0.065
0.063
0.062
0.072
0.069
0.067
0.073
0.072
0.071
0.067
0.070
0.073
0.070
0.072
0.073
0.068
0.067
0.069
0.072
0.070
0.070
0.068
0.066
0.065
0.070
0.070
0.073
0.070
0.066
0.065
0.065
0.069
0.070
0.068
0.072
0.070
0.067
0.065
0.070
0.071
0.069
0.071
0.071
0.068
0.066
0.069
0.071
0.071
0.070
0.069
0.066
0.065
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
2017
2015–2017
design
value
(ppm)
2014
District of Columbia ...
District of Columbia ...
District of Columbia ...
2016
2014–2016
design
value
(ppm)
Therefore, the Washington Area has
satisfied the requirement in CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) for redesignation
to attainment of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. The Washington Area’s
designation status for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS is not relevant to determining
if the Area has satisfied the requirement
in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) for
redesignation for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
EPA notes that the 2015–2017 design
value exceeds the 2015 ozone standard
of 0.070 ppm but does not exceed the
2008 ozone standard of 0.075 ppm.
Because this redesignation is only for
the less stringent 2008 standard, a
design value above the 2015 standard is
not relevant, as long as it is below the
2008 standard. In addition, the other
monitoring data (the AQI data) provided
by Earthjustice are not design values.
The values provided by Earthjustice are
daily maximum concentrations of ozone
at monitors located in the Washington
Area. Compliance with the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, as well as the 1997 and 2015
NAAQS, is not determined based on
daily maximum concentrations, as
implied by Earthjustice, but on design
values exceeding the particular NAAQS
standard. A design value for an air
quality monitor is the three-year average
of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations recorded at that monitor.
See 40 CFR 50.15(b). An area’s design
value is based on the monitor in the area
which records the highest design value
over the three-year period. As discussed
in the August 8, 2018 NPRM, an area
‘‘attains’’ the 2008 ozone NAAQS if the
area’s design value is below 0.075 ppm.
The final 2015–2017 design values,
shown in Table 1, are below the 2008
ozone NAAQS. The most recent
preliminary air quality monitoring data
(2016–2018 design value) is also
consistent with this finding. Thus, there
is no evidence that the ozone design
value for the Washington Area exceeded
the 2008 ozone standard.
Comment 2: Earthjustice also stated
that EPA cannot approve the
6 On October 26, 2015, EPA strengthened both the
primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level
of 0.070 parts per million (ppm) (annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average
concentration, averaged over 3 years). See 80 FR
65292. The 2015 ozone NAAQS is more stringent
than the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which was set at
0.075 ppm (annual fourth-highest daily maximum
8-hour average concentration, averaged over 3
years). See 73 FR 16483 (March 27, 2008). The
Washington Area was designated as marginal
nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (83 FR
25776, June 4, 2018).
7 A summary of the 2014 to 2016 ozone air quality
data as well as the preliminary 2015–2017 ozone
design values were provided in Table 1 of the
August 8, 2018 NPRM. Since the publication of the
NPRM, the 2015–2017 design values were finalized
and preliminary 2016–2018 design value data
became available. This data is included in the
docket for this rulemaking action available online
at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA–
R03–OAR–2018–0215.
8 As noted previously, the 2016–2018 design
values are preliminary.
9 The 2014 and 2015 data at monitoring site 11–
001–0041 (also referred to as ‘‘the River Terrace
monitor’’) is incomplete. Therefore, the 2014–2016
and 2015–2017 design values are invalid. The River
Terrace monitor was temporarily shut down in
March 2014 due to renovations at the monitoring
site. The River Terrace monitor was reinstated in
2016, and began operation in May 2016. The
temporary shutdown of the River Terrace monitor
is discussed in more detail in the TSD for the
August 8, 2018 NPRM available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA–R03–OAR–
2018–0215.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Apr 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
15112
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
redesignation of the Washington Area
because the Area has not satisfied its
anti-backsliding obligations under the
1997 ozone standard. Earthjustice
commented that EPA failed to evaluate
in the NPRM if the Washington Area has
met the anti-backsliding requirements
under the 1997 ozone NAAQS and that
Virginia lacks EPA-approved reasonably
available control technology (RACT)
SIPs under the 1997 standard.
Specifically, Earthjustice referenced
EPA’s ‘‘SIP Dashboard,’’ which showed
that for Virginia’s portion of the
Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment
area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS,10 EPA
had not approved the following RACT
VOC control techniques guidelines
(CTGs): Control Techniques Guidelines
for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Assembly Coatings (Publication No.
EPA 453/R–08–006; September 2008)
(auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings CTG), Control Techniques
Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat
Manufacturing (Publication No. EPA
453/R–08–004; September 2008)
(fiberglass boat manufacturing materials
CTG), Control Techniques Guidelines
for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings
(Publication No. EPA 453/R–06–004;
September 2006) (flat wood paneling
coatings CTG), Control Techniques
Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing
(Publication No. EPA 453/R–06–003;
September 2006) (flexible packaging
printing materials CTG), Control
Techniques Guidelines for Large
Appliance Coatings (Publication No.
EPA 453/R–07–004; September 2007)
(large appliance coatings CTG), Control
Techniques Guidelines for Metal
Furniture Coatings (Publication No. EPA
453/R–07–005; September 2007) (metal
furniture coatings CTG), Control
Techniques Guidelines for Paper, Film,
and Foil Coatings (Publication No. EPA
453/R–07–003; September 2007) (paper,
film, and foil coatings CTG), and Control
of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems,
Wastewater Separators, and Process
Unit Turnarounds (Publication No. EPA
450/2–77–025; October 1977) (refinery
vacuum producing systems, wastewater
separators, and process unit
turnarounds CTG).11
10 On April 30, 2004, EPA designated the
following areas in Virginia as moderate
nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS: The
Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince
William and the Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls
Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park. See 69 FR
23858.
11 A copy of the list submitted by Earthjustice to
EPA as part of Earthjustice’s comment is included
in the docket for this rulemaking available online
at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA–
R03–OAR–2018–0215. The current version of EPA’s
‘‘SIP Dashboard’’ may be accessed online at https://
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Apr 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
EPA Response: EPA disagrees that the
Washington Area has not met its antibacksliding requirements for the 1997
ozone standard. In accordance with 40
CFR 51.1105(a)(1), the Washington Area
is subject to those anti-backsliding
controls listed in 40 CFR 51.1100(o) that
were applicable to an area with a
moderate nonattainment classification
as of the time of revocation, until the
area is redesignated to attainment for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA believes
Virginia and Maryland have complied
with all applicable anti-backsliding
requirements for the revoked 1997
ozone NAAQS.
Specifically, with respect to ozone
RACT requirements under the revoked
1997 standard, EPA believes that
Virginia has met its obligations. The
commenter is correct that at the time
Earthjustice submitted its comment,
EPA’s ‘‘SIP Dashboard’’ indicated that
Virginia did not have an approved
RACT SIP for the refinery vacuum
producing systems, wastewater
separators, and process unit
turnarounds CTG under the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. However, this entry in the SIP
Dashboard was incorrect. On October
23, 2006, Virginia submitted a SIP
revision to EPA that addressed the
requirements of RACT under the 1997
ozone NAAQS (also referred to at the
time as the ‘‘8-hour ozone NAAQS’’) for
all RACT VOC CTGs that were due at
the time (September 15, 2006). EPA
found that Virginia met all of the RACT
requirements,12 including those
addressing the refinery vacuum
producing systems, wastewater
separators, and processes unit
turnarounds CTG in question. On June
16, 2009 (74 FR 28444), EPA finalized
approval of Virginia’s October 23, 2006
SIP revision as satisfying the
requirements of RACT under the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS.
Subsequent to Virginia’s 2006
submittal, EPA issued additional CTGs
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in
September 2006, 2007, and 2008.13 With
www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/sipstatus-reports.
12 EPA found that Virginia met all of the RACT
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
through: Certification that previously adopted
RACT controls in Virginia’s SIP that were approved
by EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are based
on the currently available technically and
economically feasible controls, and that they
continue to represent RACT for 1997 8-hour
implementation purposes; a negative declaration
demonstrating that no facilities exist in the Virginia
portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 ozone
NAAQS nonattainment area for certain CTG
categories; and a new RACT determination for a
specific source.
13 The following RACT VOC CTGs were issued
and/or became due after Virginia submitted their
SIP submittal addressing the RACT CTG
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
respect to CTG requirements covering
lithographic printing materials and
letterpress printing materials, industrial
cleaning solvents, miscellaneous
industrial adhesives, and miscellaneous
metal products coatings and plastic
parts coatings, Virginia submitted three
SIP revisions on February 1, 2016
adopting RACT for these source
categories located in the Northern
Virginia Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions Control Area. On August 23,
2016 (81 FR 57531), EPA approved
Virginia’s SIP revisions adopting RACT
for these source categories.
Other 1997 ozone NAAQS CTGs
issued subsequent to Virginia’s 2006 SIP
submission include those covering flat
wood paneling coatings, flexible
packaging printing materials, large
appliance coatings, paper, film, and foil
coatings, metal furniture coatings,
fiberglass boat manufacturing materials,
and auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings. However, no sources subject to
these CTGs are located within the
Northern Virginia Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions Control Area.14
Virginia therefore sent negative
declaration letters to EPA on November
25, 2008 for the flat wood paneling
coatings CTG and flexible packaging
printing materials CTG, on December 3,
2008 for the large appliance coatings
CTG, paper, film, and foil coatings CTG,
and metal furniture coatings CTG, on
May 6, 2009 for the fiberglass boat
manufacturing materials CTG, and on
May 18, 2009 for the auto and light-duty
truck assembly coatings CTG.15 These
requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS: Auto and
light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG; fiberglass
boat manufacturing materials CTG; flat wood
paneling coatings CTG; flexible packaging printing
materials CTG; Control Techniques Guidelines for
Industrial Cleaning Solvents (Publication No. EPA
453/R–06–001; September 2006) (industrial
cleaning solvents CTG); large appliance coatings
CTG; metal furniture coatings CTG; Control
Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Industrial
Adhesives (Publication No. EPA 453/R–08–005;
September 2008) (miscellaneous industrial
adhesives CTG); Control Techniques Guidelines for
Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings
(Publication No. EPA 453/R–08–003; September
2008) (miscellaneous metal products coatings and
plastic parts coatings CTGs); Control Techniques
Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and
Letterpress Printing (Publication No. EPA 453/R–
06–002; September 2006) (lithographic printing
materials and letterpress printing materials); and
paper, film, and foil coatings CTG. These CTGs
were due one year from the date they were issued.
Therefore, they were not addressed in Virginia’s
October 23, 2006 submittal addressing RACT
requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
14 The Northern Virginia Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions Control Area consists of
Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, and
Stafford Counties as well as the cities of Alexandria,
Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, Manassas Park and
therefore includes Virginia’s portion of the
Washington Area plus Stafford County.
15 These negative declaration letters were
submitted by Virginia in order to meet section 105
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
negative declaration letters certified that
there are no sources located in the
Northern Virginia Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions Control Area
subject to the RACT VOC CTGs for
fiberglass boat manufacturing materials
and auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings and no sources located in the
Commonwealth of Virginia subject to
the RACT VOC CTGs for large appliance
coatings, paper, film, and foil coatings,
metal furniture coatings, flat wood
paneling coatings, and flexible
packaging printing materials. Virginia
has recently re-certified that there are no
sources located in the relevant Control
Area subject to these same CTGs as part
of its December 12, 2017 SIP submission
addressing Virginia’s RACT obligations
under the 2008 ozone NAAQS.16 In
addition, EPA consulted the latest
version of EPA’s National Emissions
Inventory (2014 NEI v2) and confirmed
that no facilities subject to these CTGs
were found in Virginia’s portion of the
Washington Area.
Comment 3: Earthjustice stated that
EPA cannot approve the proposed
maintenance plan because the
contingency measures do not include
implementation of ‘‘all measures with
respect to the control of the air pollutant
concerned which were contained in the
State implementation plan for the area
before redesignation of the area.’’ See
CAA section 175A(d).
EPA Response: The District,
Maryland, and Virginia are not moving
any of their existing SIP-approved
measures into the contingency plan.
These measures remain part of their
active SIPs. Therefore, these measures
are not included as part of the
contingency plan in the maintenance
plan for the Washington Area. The
District’s, Maryland’s, and Virginia’s
maintenance plan states, ‘‘This
maintenance plan includes a
commitment to continue to enforce all
applicable requirements of past
revisions to the state implementation
grant commitments for 2009 and 2010 and are
included in the docket for this rulemaking available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID:
EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215.
16 We note that RACT SIPs submitted to address
the 2008 ozone NAAQS are not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation under
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). As explained
in the August 8, 2018 NPRM, EPA has interpreted
the CAA section 184 requirements, including
reasonable available control technology (RACT), as
not applicable under these provisions because they
apply to the Washington Area pursuant to the
Area’s inclusion in the ozone transport region
(OTR), and are not tied to the area’s designation
status. See 61 FR 53174, 53175–53176 (October 10,
1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830–24832 (May 7,
1997). Therefore, the Washington Area will remain
subject to the requirements of CAA section 184,
including RACT, even after redesignation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Apr 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
plan (SIP) after the ozone nonattainment
area is redesignated to attainment.’’ 17
On February 26, 2019, February 27,
2019, and February 6, 2019, EPA
received letters from the District,
Maryland, and Virginia, respectively,
clarifying that this statement in the
maintenance plan was intended to mean
that, in accordance with section 175A(d)
of the CAA, the District, Maryland, and
Virginia will implement all measures,
with respect to the control of ozone, that
were contained in the SIPs for the
Washington Area prior to redesignation
of the Area to attainment and that any
measures currently in the District’s,
Maryland’s, and Virginia’s SIPs, with
respect to the control of ozone, will be
retained as contingency measures for
the 20-year maintenance period
following redesignation of the
Washington Area to attainment for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.18 Therefore, EPA
finds that the maintenance plan for the
Washington Area satisfies the
requirement of CAA section 175A(d)
referenced in Earthjustice’s comment.
Comment 4: Earthjustice commented
that EPA cannot approve the
maintenance plan because EPA
proposed to approve ‘‘a commitment to
adopt contingency measures to address
violations’’ as a contingency measure.
Earthjustice stated that EPA cannot
approve the contingency measures in
the maintenance plan because the
commitment to adopt contingency
measures to address violations is a
‘‘promise to do later what’s required
now’’ by CAA section 175A(d).
EPA Response: Section 175A(d) of the
CAA requires that a maintenance plan
include contingency provisions, as
necessary, to promptly correct any
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation of the area. States are not
required to have fully-adopted
contingency measures in their SIP in
order for the maintenance plan to be
approved.19 Contingency measures are
17 See pages 11 and 15–17 of the ‘‘Maintenance
Plan for the Washington DC-MD-VA 2008 Ozone
NAAQS Nonattainment Area,’’ prepared by the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
December 20, 2017 included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA–R03–OAR–
2018–0215.
18 These February 26, 2019, February 27, 2019,
and February 6, 2019 clarifying letters from the
District, Maryland, and Virginia, respectively, are
included in the docket for this rulemaking available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID:
EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215.
19 See ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (the
‘‘Calcagni memorandum’’) included in the docket
for this rulemaking available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA–R03–OAR–
2018–0215.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15113
adopted and implemented by a State if
a violation of the NAAQS occurs in the
maintenance area or if a triggering event
(also referred to as an ‘‘indicator’’)
identified by the State in its
maintenance plan occurs.20 The
District’s, Maryland’s, and Virginia’s
joint maintenance plan identifies
specific measures that EPA has found to
be appropriate to use as contingency
measures.21 In addition to these
measures, the District, Maryland, and
Virginia commit in their maintenance
plan to adopt, as SIP revisions,
additional contingency measures if
necessary to address a violation of the
2008 ozone NAAQS in the Washington
Area. This commitment strengthens the
contingency measures in the
maintenance plan by providing
assurance that if a violation of the 2008
ozone NAAQS occurs in the
Washington Area that may not be
responsive using the existing
contingency measures in the
maintenance plan, the District,
Maryland, and Virginia can assess the
specific cause of the violation and adopt
appropriate, tailored contingency
measures as necessary. The contingency
measures included in the District’s,
Maryland’s, and Virginia’s maintenance
plan satisfy the requirements for
contingency measures in CAA section
175A as well as the Calcagni
memorandum.22
Comment 5: Earthjustice commented
that if EPA approves the proposed
redesignation, EPA ‘‘should make clear
in the final action that the redesignation
does not affect obligations that apply via
the Washington nonattainment area’s
severe classification under the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS.’’
20 The Calcagni memorandum states that the State
should identify in the maintenance plan specific
indicators, or ‘‘triggers’’, to be used to determine
when the contingency measures need to be
implemented.
21 See the discussion of the contingency measures
included in the District’s, Maryland’s, and
Virginia’s maintenance plan in the August 8, 2018
NPRM as well as the July 19, 2018 ‘‘Technical
Support Document for the Approval of the
Maryland and Virginia Redesignation Requests and
District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia
Maintenance Plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA
2008 Ozone Standard Nonattainment Area’’
included in the docket for this rulemaking available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID:
EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215.
22 For a detailed analysis of the contingency
measures included in the District’s, Maryland’s, and
Virginia’s maintenance plan, see the August 8, 2018
NPRM as well as the July 19, 2018 ‘‘Technical
Support Document for the Approval of the
Maryland and Virginia Redesignation Requests and
District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia
Maintenance Plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA
2008 Ozone Standard Nonattainment Area’’
included in the docket for this rulemaking available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID:
EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215.
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
15114
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
EPA Response: EPA’s approval of
Maryland’s and Virginia’s redesignation
requests for the Washington Area for the
2008 ozone NAAQS and the associated
maintenance plan submitted by the
District, Maryland, and Virginia pertains
to the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the antibacksliding requirements for the 1997
ozone NAAQS and does not affect
obligations that apply under 40 CFR
51.905(a) for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v.
EPA, 882 F.3d 1138, 1151 (D.C. Cir.
2018).
Comment 6: Earthjustice stated that
EPA should not finalize the August 8,
2018 NPRM nor redesignate the
Washington Area to attainment for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with
Earthjustice’s comment that EPA should
not finalize the August 8, 2018 NPRM.
EPA finds that Maryland’s and
Virginia’s portions of the Washington
Area satisfy the requirements for
redesignation under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
EPA also still finds that the joint
maintenance plan submitted by the
District, Maryland, and Virginia for the
Washington Area satisfies the
requirements of CAA section 175A.
Therefore, EPA is approving the
requests from Maryland and Virginia to
redesignate to attainment their
respective portions of the Washington
Area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as well
as the joint maintenance plan submitted
by the District, Maryland, and Virginia.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving the requests from
Maryland and Virginia to redesignate to
attainment their respective portions of
the Washington Area for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. EPA is not at this time
approving the redesignation request
from the District but will address the
District’s redesignation request in a
separate rulemaking action. EPA is also
approving, as a revision to the District’s,
Maryland’s, and Virginia’s SIPs, the
joint maintenance plan submitted by the
District, Maryland, and Virginia. The
joint maintenance plan demonstrates
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
through 2030 in the Washington Area
and includes 2014, 2025, and 2030
MVEBs for NOX and VOCs for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Finally, EPA has found
adequate and is approving these 2014,
2025, and 2030 NOX and VOC MVEBs
for the Washington Area.
V. General Information Pertaining to
SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation
that provides, subject to certain
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Apr 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
conditions, for an environmental
assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for
voluntary compliance evaluations
performed by a regulated entity. The
legislation further addresses the relative
burden of proof for parties either
asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the
privilege is claimed. Virginia’s
legislation also provides, subject to
certain conditions, for a penalty waiver
for violations of environmental laws
when a regulated entity discovers such
violations pursuant to a voluntary
compliance evaluation and voluntarily
discloses such violations to the
Commonwealth and takes prompt and
appropriate measures to remedy the
violations. Virginia’s Voluntary
Environmental Assessment Privilege
Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides
a privilege that protects from disclosure
documents and information about the
content of those documents that are the
product of a voluntary environmental
assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information
that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a
voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the
assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger
to the public health or environment; or
(4) are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the
Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal
opinion that states that the Privilege
law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes
granting a privilege to documents and
information ‘‘required by law,’’
including documents and information
‘‘required by federal law to maintain
program delegation, authorization or
approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce
federally authorized environmental
programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their federal
counterparts. . . .’’ The opinion
concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198,
therefore, documents or other
information needed for civil or criminal
enforcement under one of these
programs could not be privileged
because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing
enforcement in a manner required by
federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval.’’
Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code
Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the
extent consistent with requirements
imposed by federal law,’’ any person
making a voluntary disclosure of
information to a state agency regarding
a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative
order is granted immunity from
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
administrative or civil penalty. The
Attorney General’s January 12, 1998
opinion states that the quoted language
renders this statute inapplicable to
enforcement of any federally authorized
programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be
afforded from administrative, civil, or
criminal penalties because granting
such immunity would not be consistent
with federal law, which is one of the
criteria for immunity.’’
Therefore, EPA has determined that
Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity
statutes will not preclude the
Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal
requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state
audit privilege and immunity law can
affect only state enforcement and cannot
have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at
any time invoke its authority under the
CAA, including, for example, sections
113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the
requirements or prohibitions of the state
plan, independently of any state
enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the
CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or
any, state audit privilege or immunity
law.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, redesignation of an
area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of the
maintenance plan under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the
air quality designation status of
geographical areas and do not impose
any additional regulatory requirements
on sources beyond those required by
state law. A redesignation to attainment
does not in and of itself impose any new
requirements, but rather results in the
application of requirements contained
in the CAA for areas that have been
redesignated to attainment. Moreover,
the Administrator is required to approve
a SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
State choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely approves State law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law. For
that reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
15115
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
• 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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land as defined
in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area
where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). In
addition, this rule does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country located in the
state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by June 14, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action
approving Maryland’s and Virginia’s
redesignation requests for their
Applicable
geographic area
Maintenance plan for the District of Columbia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard.
District of Columbia .............................
3. Section 52.476 is amended by
adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
§ 52.476
*
*
Control strategy: ozone.
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
16:31 Apr 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
(j) EPA approves the maintenance
plan for the District of Columbia portion
of the Washington, DC-MD-VA
nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS submitted by the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: March 19, 2019.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
Title 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are
amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart J—District of Columbia
2. In § 52.470, the table in paragraph
(e) is amended by adding an entry for
‘‘Maintenance plan for the District of
Columbia portion of the Washington,
DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for the
2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard’’ at the end of the
table to read as follows:
■
§ 52.470
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
State
submittal
date
Name of non-regulatory SIP revision
■
respective portions of the Washington
Area as well as the District’s,
Maryland’s, and Virginia’s maintenance
plan for the Washington Area may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
3/12/18
*
EPA
approval
date
4/15/2019,
[Insert
Federal
Register
citation].
*
Additional
explanation
§ 52.476(j).
Director of the District of Columbia
Department of Energy and Environment
on March 12, 2018. The maintenance
plan includes 2014, 2025, and 2030
motor vehicle emission budgets
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
15116
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
(MVEBs) for VOC and NOX to be
applied to all future transportation
conformity determinations and analyses
for the entire Washington, DC-MD-VA
area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The maintenance plan includes two sets
of VOC and NOX MVEBs: The MVEBs
without transportation buffers are
effective as EPA has determined them
used to create the set of MVEBs without
transportation buffers. The technical
analyses used to demonstrate
compliance with the MVEBs and the
need, if any, to use transportation
buffers will be fully documented in the
conformity analysis and follow the
Transportation Planning Board’s (TPB)
interagency consultation procedures.
adequate for transportation conformity
purposes; the MVEBs with
transportation buffers will be used only
as needed in situations where the
conformity analysis must be based on
different data, models, or planning
assumptions, including, but not limited
to, updates to demographic, land use, or
project-related assumptions, than were
TABLE 3 TO PARAGRAPH (j)—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR THE WASHINGTON, DC-MD-VA AREA
Type of control strategy SIP
VOC
(TPD)
Year
Maintenance Plan ...........................................
2014
2025
2030
NOX
(TPD)
61.3
33.2
24.1
Effective date of adequacy determination of
SIP approval
136.8
40.7
27.4
5/15/2019.
TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (j)—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS WITH TRANSPORTATION BUFFERS FOR THE
WASHINGTON, DC-MD-VA AREA
Type of control strategy SIP
Maintenance Plan ...........................................
Subpart V—Maryland
4. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph
(e) is amended by adding an entry for
‘‘Maintenance plan for the Maryland
■
2014
2025
2030
NOX
(TPD)
61.3
39.8
28.9
portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA
Nonattainment Area for the 2008 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard’’ at the end of the table to read
as follows:
Applicable
geographic area
*
*
*
Maintenance plan for the Maryland portion of the
Washington, DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for
the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard.
*
*
Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince George’s Counties.
5. Section 52.1076 is amended by
adding paragraph (ee) to read as follows:
§ 52.1076 Control strategy plans for
attainment and rate-of-progress: Ozone.
*
*
*
*
*
(ee) EPA approves the maintenance
plan for the Maryland portion of the
Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment
area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
submitted by the Secretary of the
Maryland Department of the
Environment on February 5, 2018. The
maintenance plan includes 2014, 2025,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Apr 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Contingent and effective upon interagency
consultation.
§ 52.1070
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
State
submittal date
and 2030 motor vehicle emission
budgets (MVEBs) for VOC and NOX to
be applied to all future transportation
conformity determinations and analyses
for the entire Washington, DC-MD-VA
area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The maintenance plan includes two sets
of VOC and NOX MVEBs: The MVEBs
without transportation buffers are
effective as EPA has determined them
adequate for transportation conformity
purposes; the MVEBs with
transportation buffers will be used only
as needed in situations where the
PO 00000
Effective date of adequacy determination of
SIP approval
136.8
48.8
32.9
Name of non-regulatory SIP revision
■
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
VOC
(TPD)
Year
2/5/2018
*
*
EPA
approval
date
Additional
explanation
*
4/15/2019,
[Insert
Federal
Register
citation].
*
§ 52.1076(ee).
conformity analysis must be based on
different data, models, or planning
assumptions, including, but not limited
to, updates to demographic, land use, or
project-related assumptions, than were
used to create the set of MVEBs without
transportation buffers. The technical
analyses used to demonstrate
compliance with the MVEBs and the
need, if any, to use transportation
buffers will be fully documented in the
conformity analysis and follow the
Transportation Planning Board’s (TPB)
interagency consultation procedures.
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
15117
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 9 TO PARAGRAPH (ee)—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR THE WASHINGTON, DC-MD-VA AREA
Type of control strategy SIP
VOC
(TPD)
Year
Maintenance Plan ...........................................
2014
2025
2030
NOX
(TPD)
61.3
33.2
40.7
Effective date of adequacy determination of
SIP approval
136.8
24.1
27.4
5/15/2019.
TABLE 10 TO PARAGRAPH (ee)—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS WITH TRANSPORTATION BUFFERS FOR THE
WASHINGTON, DC-MD-VA AREA
Type of control strategy SIP
VOC
(TPD)
Year
Maintenance Plan ...........................................
Subpart VV—Virginia
6. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph
(e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for
‘‘Maintenance plan for the Virginia
■
2014
2025
2030
NOX
(TPD)
61.3
39.8
28.9
136.8
48.8
32.9
portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA
Nonattainment Area for the 2008 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard’’ at the end of the table to read
as follows:
Applicable
geographic area
*
*
*
Maintenance plan for the Virginia portion of the
Washington, DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for
the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard.
*
*
Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and
Prince William Counties and the Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls
Church, Manassas, and Manassas
Park.
*
*
*
*
7. Section 52.2428 is amended by
adding paragraph (m) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.2428 Control Strategy: Carbon
monoxide and ozone.
*
*
*
*
*
(m) EPA approves the maintenance
plan for the Virginia portion of the
Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment
area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
submitted by the Director of the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality
on January 3, 2018. The maintenance
plan includes 2014, 2025, and 2030
Contingent and effective upon interagency
consultation.
§ 52.2420
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
State
submittal
date
Name of non-regulatory SIP revision
*
Effective date of adequacy determination of
SIP approval
motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEBs) for VOC and NOX to be
applied to all future transportation
conformity determinations and analyses
for the entire Washington, DC-MD-VA
area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The maintenance plan includes two sets
of VOC and NOX MVEBs: The MVEBs
without transportation buffers are
effective as EPA has determined them
adequate for transportation conformity
purposes; the MVEBs with
transportation buffers will be used only
as needed in situations where the
1/3/18
*
EPA
approval
date
*
4/15/2019,
[Insert
Federal
Register
citation].
*
Additional
explanation
*
§ 52.2428(m).
conformity analysis must be based on
different data, models, or planning
assumptions, including, but not limited
to, updates to demographic, land use, or
project-related assumptions, than were
used to create the set of MVEBs without
transportation buffers. The technical
analyses used to demonstrate
compliance with the MVEBs and the
need, if any, to use transportation
buffers will be fully documented in the
conformity analysis and follow the
Transportation Planning Board’s (TPB)
interagency consultation procedures.
TABLE 3 TO PARAGRAPH (m)—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR THE WASHINGTON, DC-MD-VA AREA
Type of control strategy SIP
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
Maintenance Plan ...........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Apr 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
VOC
(TPD)
Year
PO 00000
2014
2025
2030
Frm 00035
NOX
(TPD)
61.3
33.2
24.1
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
136.8
40.7
27.4
Effective date of adequacy determination of
SIP approval
5/15/2019.
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
15118
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (m)—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS WITH TRANSPORTATION BUFFERS FOR THE
WASHINGTON, DC-MD-VA AREA
Type of control strategy SIP
VOC
(TPD)
Year
Maintenance Plan ...........................................
PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS
FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING
PURPOSES
8. The authority citation for part 81
continues to read as follows:
■
2014
2025
2030
Effective date of adequacy determination of
SIP approval
NOX
(TPD)
61.3
39.8
28.9
136.8
48.8
32.9
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Contingent and effective upon interagency
consultation.
and secondary)’’ is amended by revising
the entry ‘‘Washington, DC-MD-VA:’’ to
read as follows:
Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment
Status Designations
§ 81.321
9. In § 81.321, the table ‘‘Maryland—
2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary
■
*
*
Maryland.
*
*
*
MARYLAND—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
*
*
Washington, DC-MD-VA: 2 ..............................
Calvert County .........................................
Charles County ........................................
Frederick County .....................................
Montgomery County ................................
Prince George’s County ..........................
*
1 This
*
April
April
April
April
April
April
*
15,
15,
15,
15,
15,
15,
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
Date1
Type
............
............
............
............
............
............
*
Type
*
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
2 Excludes
*
*
*
*
*
a. Removing the footnote designation
from the table heading ‘‘Designated
area’’;
■ b. Revising the footnote designations
for both ‘‘Date’’ table headings; and
■
10. In § 81.347, the table ‘‘Virginia—
2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Primary
and secondary)’’ is amended by:
■
c. Revising the entry ‘‘Washington,
DC-MD-VA:’’.
The revisions read as follows:
■
§ 81.347
*
*
Virginia.
*
*
*
VIRGINIA—2008 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
Designation
Classification
Designated area
Date 1
Washington, DC-MD-VA: 2 ..............................
Arlington County ......................................
Fairfax County .........................................
Loudoun County ......................................
Prince William County .............................
Alexandria City ........................................
Fairfax City ..............................................
Falls Church City .....................................
Manassas City .........................................
Manassas Park City ................................
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
*
1 This
*
April
April
April
April
April
April
April
April
April
April
15,
15,
15,
15,
15,
15,
15,
15,
15,
15,
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
Date1
Type
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
*
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
Attainment.
*
*
*
date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
2 Excludes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Apr 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Type
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
*
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2019–06128 Filed 4–12–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 147
[EPA–HQ–OW–2018–0669; FRL–9992–26–
OW]
State of North Dakota Underground
Injection Control Program; Class I, III,
IV, and V Primacy Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving an
application from the State of North
Dakota under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) to revise the State’s
existing Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Program for Class I, III, IV, and V
injection wells located within the State,
except those in Indian country. North
Dakota has revised its UIC Class I, III,
IV, and V program regulations to
transfer primary enforcement authority
from the North Dakota Department of
Health to the North Dakota Department
of Environmental Quality.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
May 15, 2019. The Director of the
Federal Register approved this
incorporation by reference in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51 on May 15, 2019. For
judicial purposes, this final rule is
promulgated as of April 15, 2019.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OW–2018–0669. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information disclosure of
which 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
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov.
SUMMARY:
Kyle
Carey, Drinking Water Protection
Division, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water (4606M), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460; telephone number: (202) 564–
2322; fax number: (202) 564–3754;
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:31 Apr 12, 2019
Jkt 247001
email address: carey.kyle@epa.gov, or
Omar Sierra-Lopez, Underground
Injection Control Unit, Safe Drinking
Water Program, Office of Water
Protection (8WP–SUI), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202–1129; telephone
number: (303) 312–7045; fax number:
(303) 312–7517; email address: sierralopez.omar@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The EPA approved North Dakota’s
UIC program as meeting the
requirements for primary enforcement
responsibility (primacy) for Class I, III,
IV, and V injection wells, under section
1422 of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), on September 21, 1984. The
State has revised its UIC Class I, III, IV,
and V program statutes and regulations
to transfer this authority from the North
Dakota Department of Health to the
North Dakota Department of
Environmental Quality.
II. Legal Authorities
These regulations are being
promulgated under authority of sections
1422 and 1450 of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C.
300h–1 and 300j–9.
A. Revision of State UIC Programs
As required by section 1421 of the
SDWA, the EPA promulgated minimum
requirements in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 145 for
effective state UIC programs to prevent
underground injection activities that
endanger underground sources of
drinking water (USDWs). Under section
1422 of the SDWA, once the EPA
approves a state UIC program, the state
has primary enforcement responsibility
for the UIC program. A state may revise
its UIC program as provided under 40
CFR 145.32(a) and by following the
procedures described under 40 CFR
145.32(b), which require the state to
submit a modified program description,
an Attorney General’s statement, a
Memorandum of Agreement, or other
such documentation as the EPA
determines to be necessary under the
circumstances (40 CFR 145.32(b)(1)).
States with approved programs are
required to notify the EPA whenever
they propose to transfer all or part of the
approved state agency to any other state
agency and to identify any new division
of responsibilities among the agencies
involved. Organizational charts required
in the state’s original primacy approval
package must be revised and
resubmitted. The new agency is not
authorized to administer the program
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15119
until approval by the Administrator (40
CFR 145.32(c)).
All revisions to the UIC program are
federally enforceable as of the effective
date of the EPA’s approval of the
respective revision and 40 CFR part 147
codification.
In the EPA’s announcement of its
proposed rule in the Federal Register on
December 4, 2018, Table 1 in the
proposed amendment to 40 CFR part
147 indicated a State effective date of
2018 for the revisions to the North
Dakota Century Code and North Dakota
Administrative Code. In the final rule,
the EPA is revising § 147.1751(a) to
identify 2019 as the effective date of the
statute and regulations that North
Dakota submitted to the EPA in its
program revision submission. The
revised statute specified in § 147.1751(a)
was enacted in 2018 and will be fully
effective in April 2019. The revised
regulations in § 147.1751(a) were
promulgated in 2018 and became
effective on January 1, 2019.
Consistent with the EPA Guidance 34,
Guidance for Review and Approval of
State Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Programs and Revisions to
Approved State Programs, the EPA
considers state-initiated program
revisions to transfer all or part of any
program from the approved authority to
another state agency as substantial
program revisions. Under the EPA’s
regulations, this means that there was
an opportunity for public comment and
to request a public hearing (40 CFR
145.32(b)(2)).
B. Indian Country
The EPA’s approval of North Dakota’s
application to transfer its SDWA UIC
Class I, III, IV, and V primary
enforcement authority from the North
Dakota Department of Health to the
North Dakota Department of
Environmental Quality does not extend
to Indian lands. Pursuant to the EPA’s
UIC regulations at 40 CFR 144.3, Indian
lands ‘‘means ‘Indian country’ as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.’’ As defined
in 18 U.S.C. 1151, Indian country
generally includes lands within the
exterior boundaries of the following
Indian reservations located within
North Dakota: The Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation, the Spirit Lake Reservation,
the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation,
and the Turtle Mountain Reservation;
any land held in trust by the United
States for an Indian tribe; and any other
areas that are Indian country within the
meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151. The EPA, or
eligible Indian tribes, as appropriate,
will retain responsibilities under the
SDWA UIC program for Class I, III, IV,
and V injection wells in Indian country.
E:\FR\FM\15APR1.SGM
15APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 72 (Monday, April 15, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15108-15119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06128]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215; FRL-9991-44-Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia;
Maryland and Virginia Redesignation Requests and District of Columbia,
Maryland, and Virginia Maintenance Plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA
2008 Ozone Standard Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
requests from the State of Maryland (Maryland) and the Commonwealth of
Virginia (Virginia) to redesignate to attainment their respective
portions of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area (hereafter
``the Washington Area'' or ``the Area'') for the 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard) (also
referred to as the 2008 ozone NAAQS) as Maryland's and Virginia's
portions of the Area meet the statutory requirements for redesignation
under the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is therefore redesignating the
following jurisdictions to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS: The
Counties of Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince
George's in Maryland as well as the Counties of Arlington, Fairfax,
Loudoun, and Prince William and the Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax,
Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park in Virginia. EPA is also
approving, as a revision to District of
[[Page 15109]]
Columbia's (the District), Maryland's, and Virginia's state
implementation plans (SIPs), the joint Washington Area maintenance plan
submitted by the District, Maryland, and Virginia, which demonstrates
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS through 2030 in the Washington
Area. The Washington Area maintenance plan includes motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are
precursors to ozone. EPA has found the MVEBs adequate and is approving,
as a SIP revision, these 2014, 2025, and 2030 NOX and VOC
MVEBs for the Washington Area.
DATES: This final rule is effective on May 15, 2019.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (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 through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Calcinore, (215) 814-2043, or by
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On May 21, 2012 and June 11, 2012, EPA designated nonattainment
areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 77 FR 30088 and 77 FR 34221. Effective
July 20, 2012, the Washington Area was designated as marginal
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Washington Area consists of
the Counties of Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince
George's in Maryland, the Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and
Prince William and the Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church,
Manassas, and Manassas Park in Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
See 40 CFR 81.309, 81.321, and 81.347.
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows redesignation of an area to
attainment of the NAAQS provided that: (1) The Administrator (EPA)
determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the
Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the Administrator
determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of
the applicable SIP, applicable Federal air pollutant control
regulations, and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions;
(4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the
area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and (5)
the State containing the area has met all requirements applicable to
the area for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of
the CAA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The following EPA guidance documents are included in the
docket for this rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215: ``Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,''
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, September 4, 1992 (the ``Calcagni memorandum'') and
``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 H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993 (the ``Shapiro memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 12, 2018, February 5, 2018, and January 3, 2018, the
District, Maryland, and Virginia, respectively, formally submitted
requests to redesignate their portions of the Washington Area from
marginal nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\2\
Concurrently, the District, Maryland, and Virginia formally submitted,
as revisions to their respective SIPs, a joint maintenance plan
prepared by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG)
for the Washington Area to ensure continued attainment for at least 10
years following redesignation. The maintenance plan includes MVEBs for
NOX and VOC for the years 2014, 2025, and 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In the August 8, 2018 NPRM (83 FR 39019), EPA incorrectly
stated that Maryland's request to redesignate its portion of the
Washington Area was submitted on January 29, 2018. Maryland's
redesignation request and corresponding maintenance plan were
submitted February 5, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 8, 2018 (83 FR 39019), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the District, Maryland, and Virginia. In the
NPRM, EPA proposed approval of Maryland's and Virginia's requests to
redesignate to attainment their respective portions of the Washington
Area, pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3).\3\ EPA did not propose
approval of the redesignation request for the District's portion of the
Washington Area and will address the District's redesignation request
for its portion of the Area in a separate rulemaking action. EPA also
proposed to approve, as a revision to the District's, Maryland's, and
Virginia's SIPs, the joint maintenance plan submitted by the District,
Maryland, and Virginia that demonstrates maintenance of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS through 2030 in the Washington Area. Additionally, EPA proposed
to approve, as revisions to the District's, Maryland's, and Virginia's
SIPs, the 2014, 2025, and 2030 MVEBs for NOX and VOC for the
Washington Area identified in the Washington Area maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ As stated previously, Maryland's portion of the Washington
Area consists of the Counties of Calvert, Charles, Frederick,
Montgomery, and Prince George's. Virginia's portion of the
Washington Area consists of Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun,
and Prince William and the Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls
Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park in Virginia. In the August 8,
2018 NPRM, EPA proposed to redesignate these areas to attainment for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
EPA reviewed the District's, Maryland's, and Virginia's
redesignation requests and found that Maryland's and Virginia's
portions of the Washington Area have satisfied the requirements for
redesignation pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). As one of the
criteria for redesignation to attainment, section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of
the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved
maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA that demonstrates
continued attainment of the NAAQS for at least 10 years following
redesignation to attainment. EPA reviewed the joint maintenance plan
submitted by the District, Maryland, and Virginia and found that it
satisfies the requirements of section 175A. The Washington Area
maintenance plan includes 2014, 2025, and 2030 MVEBs for NOX
and VOC for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA found the submitted MVEBs
adequate and approvable as a revision to the District's, Maryland's,
and Virginia's SIPs.\4\ EPA's
[[Page 15110]]
rationale for these actions can be found in the August 8, 2018 NPRM and
corresponding Technical Support Documents (TSDs) included in the docket
for this action available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID:
EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The adequacy comment period for the MVEBs began on May 21,
2018, with EPA's posting of the availability of the District's,
Maryland's, and Virginia's maintenance plan submittal on EPA's
Adequacy website (at https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation). The adequacy comment period for these MVEBs ended
on June 20, 2018. EPA did not receive any adverse comments on this
submittal during the adequacy comment period. EPA originally
informed the District, Maryland, and Virginia that the 2014, 2025,
and 2030 MVEBs were adequate for use in transportation conformity
analyses in letters dated July 18, 2018. EPA revised language in
these letters and sent the revised letters to the District,
Maryland, and Virginia on July 24, 2018. The original and revised
letters are available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Public Comments and EPA Response
EPA received comments on the August 8, 2018 NPRM from four
commenters. Comments from two anonymous commenters did not concern any
of the specific issues raised in the NPRM, nor did they address EPA's
rationale for the proposed approval of Maryland's and Virginia's
redesignation requests or the District's, Maryland's, and Virginia's
joint maintenance plan. Therefore, EPA is not responding to those
comments. EPA received relevant comments from two commenters. Those
comments and EPA's responses are discussed below. All of the comments
received and any submitted attachments are included in the docket for
this action, available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-
R03-OAR-2018-0215.
Commenter 1: On August 16, 2018, EPA received anonymous comments on
the August 8, 2018 NPRM. The commenter questioned how EPA can
redesignate a portion of the Washington Area if the Area was designated
as one nonattainment area due to air quality in the entire Area not
meeting the standard. The commenter also questioned how the maintenance
plan for the entire Washington Area could be approved without first
redesignating the District's portion of the Area. The commenter
suggested that the entire Washington Area, including the District, be
redesignated prior to the approval of the maintenance plan.
EPA Response: Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, which sets forth the
criteria that must be met to redesignate a nonattainment area,
specifically mentions redesignating a portion of a nonattainment area.
Section 107(d)(3)(E) states that ``[t]he Administrator may not
promulgate a redesignation of a nonattainment area (or portion thereof)
to attainment unless . . .'' five criteria in sections 107(d)(3)(E)(i)-
(v) are met. (Emphasis added). Therefore, that statute allows EPA to
redesignate to attainment Maryland's and Virginia's portions of the
Washington Area without simultaneously redesignating the District's
portion. See, e.g., Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia-
Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area for the 1997 Annual and 2006
24-Hour fine particulate matter standard, final rulemaking for
redesignation, 80 FR 22112 (April 21, 2015); Ohio portion of the
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-PA nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, final rulemaking for redesignation, 72 FR 32190 (June 12, 2007);
Indiana portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN nonattainment
area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, final rulemaking for redesignation, 75
FR 26113 (May 11, 2010); and, West Virginia portion of the Huntington-
Ashland, WV-KY nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, final
rulemaking for redesignation, 71 FR 54421 (September 15, 2006).
Regarding the initial nonattainment designation for the Area based
on air quality not meeting the standard, air quality in the entire Area
has improved, and on November 14, 2017, EPA determined that the entire
Washington Area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the July 20, 2016
attainment date. 82 FR 52651. As discussed in the August 8, 2018 NPRM,
the entire Washington Area also continues to attain the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Because the entire Area is in attainment, EPA received formal
requests from the District, Maryland, and Virginia to redesignate their
respective portions of the Washington Area to attainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. As explained in the NPRM, EPA found that Maryland and
Virginia have satisfied the CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) requirements for
redesignation of their respective portions of the Washington Area, so
EPA is approving Maryland's and Virginia's requests and redesignating
their respective portions of the Washington Area to attainment in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. As stated in the NPRM,
EPA will act on the District's redesignation request at a later date.
The commenter also questioned how EPA can approve the maintenance
plan for the Washington Area prior to redesignating the District's
portion of the Area. However, CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) requires
that in order to redesignate an area to attainment, EPA must first have
fully approved a maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements
of CAA section 175A. EPA has long interpreted that provision to also
allow for concurrent approval of the maintenance plan or other
necessary SIP submissions. See Calcagni memorandum at 7. Because a
maintenance plan is one of the prerequisites in sections
107(d)(3)(E)(i)-(iv) for redesignation, EPA cannot redesignate an area
until the area has a maintenance plan approved by EPA.
Furthermore, nothing in CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) or 175A prohibits
EPA from approving a maintenance plan for an area prior to
redesignating the area, and approving the maintenance plan into the
District's SIP prior to redesignating the District does not adversely
impact the District's ability to maintain the NAAQS and will provide
for continued maintenance in the Washington Area, including the
District, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is approving the
maintenance plan as a revision to the District's, Maryland's, and
Virginia's SIPs.
Commenter 2: On September 7, 2018, Earthjustice submitted comments
on the August 8, 2018 NPRM on behalf of Sierra Club. The following is a
summary of Earthjustice's comments and EPA's responses:
Comment 1: Earthjustice commented that redesignating the Washington
Area under the 2008 ozone standard ``would authorize weaker protections
against ozone despite the fact that the area continues to have
unhealthy levels of ozone.'' Earthjustice noted that EPA just
designated the Washington Area as nonattainment under the 2015 ozone
NAAQS and that the most recent 2017 design value for the Washington
Area is in violation of the 2015 standard. Earthjustice provided Air
Quality Index (AQI) data for several days from May 2018 to August 2018
and stated that this year, air quality monitors within the Washington
Area have ``repeatedly recorded ozone pollution levels exceeding the
level of even the 1997 standard, while far more often exceeding the
level of the 2008 and 2015 standards.'' \5\ Earthjustice stated that,
``It is inconsistent with the Act's [CAA] statutory design to allow
protections against the ozone pollution that plagues the region to be
weakened via a redesignation under the 2008 ozone standard.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Earthjustice submitted AQI data from May 2, 2018, May 24,
2018, June 18, 2018, June 30, 2018, July 3, 2018, July 9, 2018, July
10, 2018, July 16, 2018, and August 10, 2018 with their comment,
which are included in the docket for this action, available online
at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Response: EPA does not agree that redesignating the Washington
Area to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS will authorize weaker
protections against ozone in the area. The August 8, 2018 NPRM proposes
to redesignate the Washington Area only for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
does not affect the Washington Area's designation as marginal
nonattainment
[[Page 15111]]
for the more stringent 2015 ozone NAAQS. The 2008 ozone NAAQS and 2015
ozone NAAQS are two separate standards: Areas within states are
designated for each standard and must satisfy the requirements
applicable to their designation for each standard.\6\ The redesignation
of the Washington Area from marginal nonattainment to attainment of the
2008 ozone NAAQS will not change the Area's marginal nonattainment
designation under the 2015 ozone NAAQS, nor exempt the Area from
meeting the applicable requirements for marginal nonattainment areas
under the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Because the Washington Area was classified
as marginal nonattainment under both the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards,
the Area is subject to the same statutory and associated regulatory
requirements in subchapter I, Part D of the CAA under both standards.
Therefore, redesignating the Washington Area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
will not remove any of the protections related to the Washington Area's
marginal nonattainment designation under the more stringent 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ On October 26, 2015, EPA strengthened both the primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.070 parts per million
(ppm) (annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
concentration, averaged over 3 years). See 80 FR 65292. The 2015
ozone NAAQS is more stringent than the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which was
set at 0.075 ppm (annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
concentration, averaged over 3 years). See 73 FR 16483 (March 27,
2008). The Washington Area was designated as marginal nonattainment
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (83 FR 25776, June 4, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as demonstrated in the NPRM, air quality in the
Washington Area satisfies the CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) requirement
for redesignation to attainment under the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which
requires the Administrator (EPA) to determine that the area has
attained the applicable NAAQS. Therefore, in order to be redesignated
to attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the Washington Area must, among
other requirements, attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On November 14, 2017
(82 FR 52651), EPA determined that the entire Washington Area attained
the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the July 20, 2016 attainment date because all
of the Washington Area monitoring sites with valid data had design
values less than or equal to 0.075 ppm during the 2013-2015 monitoring
period. The Washington Area continues to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
as shown by 2014-2016 and 2015-2017 design values and preliminary 2016-
2018 design values throughout the Area that continue to be below the
0.075 ppm level of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A summary of the 2014 to 2016 ozone air quality data as well
as the preliminary 2015-2017 ozone design values were provided in
Table 1 of the August 8, 2018 NPRM. Since the publication of the
NPRM, the 2015-2017 design values were finalized and preliminary
2016-2018 design value data became available. This data is included
in the docket for this rulemaking action available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215.
Table 1--Washington Area 2014-2016, 2015-2017, and Preliminary 2016-2018 Ozone Design Values
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th highest reading (ppm) 2014-2016 2015-2017 2016-2018
------------------------------------------------------- design design design
AQS site ID Site description Jurisdiction value value value
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) \8\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11-001-0041 \9\... 420 34th Street District of Columbia.. ......... ......... 0.065 0.056 0.050 0.056 0.060 0.057
NE, Washington,
DC 20019.
11-001-0043....... 2500 1st Street District of Columbia.. 0.068 0.072 0.072 0.071 0.073 0.070 0.071 0.072
NW, Washington,
DC.
11-001-0050....... 300 Van Buren District of Columbia.. 0.069 0.72 0.071 0.067 0.073 0.070 0.070 0.070
Street NW,
Washington, DC
20012.
24-009-0011....... 350 Stafford Road Maryland.............. 0.070 0.067 0.070 0.066 0.067 0.069 0.067 0.067
24-017-0010....... 14320 Oaks Road.. Maryland.............. 0.070 0.068 0.073 0.068 0.068 0.070 0.069 0.069
24-021-0037....... Frederick County Maryland.............. 0.063 0.070 0.070 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.069 0.068
Airport.
24-031-3001....... Lathrop E. Smith Maryland.............. 0.064 0.072 0.068 0.065 0.069 0.068 0.068 0.067
Environmental
Education Center.
24-033-0030....... Howard Maryland.............. 0.065 0.072 0.070 0.069 0.070 0.069 0.070 0.069
University's
Beltsville
Laboratory.
24-033-8003....... PG County Maryland.............. 0.069 0.069 0.073 0.072 0.070 0.070 0.071 0.071
Equestrian
Center.
24-033-9991....... Powder Mill Rd Maryland.............. 0.069 0.067 0.070 0.070 0.073 0.068 0.069 0.071
Laurel, MD 20708.
51-013-0020....... S 18th and Hayes Virginia.............. 0.071 0.073 0.072 0.070 0.070 0.072 0.071 0.070
St..
51-059-0030....... STA. 46-B9, Lee Virginia.............. 0.065 0.072 0.073 0.068 0.066 0.070 0.071 0.069
Park, Telegraph
Road.
51-107-1005....... 38-I, Broad Run Virginia.............. 0.063 0.071 0.068 0.066 0.065 0.067 0.068 0.066
High School,
Ashburn.
51-153-0009....... James S. Long Virginia.............. 0.062 0.067 0.067 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.066 0.065
Park.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the Washington Area has satisfied the requirement in CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) for redesignation to attainment of the 2008
ozone NAAQS. The Washington Area's designation status for the 2015
ozone NAAQS is not relevant to determining if the Area has satisfied
the requirement in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) for redesignation for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ As noted previously, the 2016-2018 design values are
preliminary.
\9\ The 2014 and 2015 data at monitoring site 11-001-0041 (also
referred to as ``the River Terrace monitor'') is incomplete.
Therefore, the 2014-2016 and 2015-2017 design values are invalid.
The River Terrace monitor was temporarily shut down in March 2014
due to renovations at the monitoring site. The River Terrace monitor
was reinstated in 2016, and began operation in May 2016. The
temporary shutdown of the River Terrace monitor is discussed in more
detail in the TSD for the August 8, 2018 NPRM available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that the 2015-2017 design value exceeds the 2015 ozone
standard of 0.070 ppm but does not exceed the 2008 ozone standard of
0.075 ppm. Because this redesignation is only for the less stringent
2008 standard, a design value above the 2015 standard is not relevant,
as long as it is below the 2008 standard. In addition, the other
monitoring data (the AQI data) provided by Earthjustice are not design
values. The values provided by Earthjustice are daily maximum
concentrations of ozone at monitors located in the Washington Area.
Compliance with the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as well as the 1997 and 2015
NAAQS, is not determined based on daily maximum concentrations, as
implied by Earthjustice, but on design values exceeding the particular
NAAQS standard. A design value for an air quality monitor is the three-
year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations recorded at that monitor. See 40 CFR 50.15(b). An
area's design value is based on the monitor in the area which records
the highest design value over the three-year period. As discussed in
the August 8, 2018 NPRM, an area ``attains'' the 2008 ozone NAAQS if
the area's design value is below 0.075 ppm. The final 2015-2017 design
values, shown in Table 1, are below the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The most
recent preliminary air quality monitoring data (2016-2018 design value)
is also consistent with this finding. Thus, there is no evidence that
the ozone design value for the Washington Area exceeded the 2008 ozone
standard.
Comment 2: Earthjustice also stated that EPA cannot approve the
[[Page 15112]]
redesignation of the Washington Area because the Area has not satisfied
its anti-backsliding obligations under the 1997 ozone standard.
Earthjustice commented that EPA failed to evaluate in the NPRM if the
Washington Area has met the anti-backsliding requirements under the
1997 ozone NAAQS and that Virginia lacks EPA-approved reasonably
available control technology (RACT) SIPs under the 1997 standard.
Specifically, Earthjustice referenced EPA's ``SIP Dashboard,'' which
showed that for Virginia's portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA
nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS,\10\ EPA had not approved
the following RACT VOC control techniques guidelines (CTGs): Control
Techniques Guidelines for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly
Coatings (Publication No. EPA 453/R-08-006; September 2008) (auto and
light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG), Control Techniques Guidelines
for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing (Publication No. EPA 453/R-08-004;
September 2008) (fiberglass boat manufacturing materials CTG), Control
Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings (Publication No.
EPA 453/R-06-004; September 2006) (flat wood paneling coatings CTG),
Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing
(Publication No. EPA 453/R-06-003; September 2006) (flexible packaging
printing materials CTG), Control Techniques Guidelines for Large
Appliance Coatings (Publication No. EPA 453/R-07-004; September 2007)
(large appliance coatings CTG), Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal
Furniture Coatings (Publication No. EPA 453/R-07-005; September 2007)
(metal furniture coatings CTG), Control Techniques Guidelines for
Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings (Publication No. EPA 453/R-07-003;
September 2007) (paper, film, and foil coatings CTG), and Control of
Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process
Unit Turnarounds (Publication No. EPA 450/2-77-025; October 1977)
(refinery vacuum producing systems, wastewater separators, and process
unit turnarounds CTG).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ On April 30, 2004, EPA designated the following areas in
Virginia as moderate nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS: The
Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William and the
Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas
Park. See 69 FR 23858.
\11\ A copy of the list submitted by Earthjustice to EPA as part
of Earthjustice's comment is included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215. The current version of EPA's ``SIP
Dashboard'' may be accessed online at https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/sip-status-reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Response: EPA disagrees that the Washington Area has not met
its anti-backsliding requirements for the 1997 ozone standard. In
accordance with 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1), the Washington Area is subject to
those anti-backsliding controls listed in 40 CFR 51.1100(o) that were
applicable to an area with a moderate nonattainment classification as
of the time of revocation, until the area is redesignated to attainment
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA believes Virginia and Maryland have
complied with all applicable anti-backsliding requirements for the
revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Specifically, with respect to ozone RACT requirements under the
revoked 1997 standard, EPA believes that Virginia has met its
obligations. The commenter is correct that at the time Earthjustice
submitted its comment, EPA's ``SIP Dashboard'' indicated that Virginia
did not have an approved RACT SIP for the refinery vacuum producing
systems, wastewater separators, and process unit turnarounds CTG under
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. However, this entry in the SIP Dashboard was
incorrect. On October 23, 2006, Virginia submitted a SIP revision to
EPA that addressed the requirements of RACT under the 1997 ozone NAAQS
(also referred to at the time as the ``8-hour ozone NAAQS'') for all
RACT VOC CTGs that were due at the time (September 15, 2006). EPA found
that Virginia met all of the RACT requirements,\12\ including those
addressing the refinery vacuum producing systems, wastewater
separators, and processes unit turnarounds CTG in question. On June 16,
2009 (74 FR 28444), EPA finalized approval of Virginia's October 23,
2006 SIP revision as satisfying the requirements of RACT under the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ EPA found that Virginia met all of the RACT requirements
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through: Certification that
previously adopted RACT controls in Virginia's SIP that were
approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are based on the
currently available technically and economically feasible controls,
and that they continue to represent RACT for 1997 8-hour
implementation purposes; a negative declaration demonstrating that
no facilities exist in the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-
MD-VA 1997 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area for certain CTG
categories; and a new RACT determination for a specific source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to Virginia's 2006 submittal, EPA issued additional CTGs
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in September 2006, 2007, and 2008.\13\ With
respect to CTG requirements covering lithographic printing materials
and letterpress printing materials, industrial cleaning solvents,
miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and miscellaneous metal products
coatings and plastic parts coatings, Virginia submitted three SIP
revisions on February 1, 2016 adopting RACT for these source categories
located in the Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
Control Area. On August 23, 2016 (81 FR 57531), EPA approved Virginia's
SIP revisions adopting RACT for these source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The following RACT VOC CTGs were issued and/or became due
after Virginia submitted their SIP submittal addressing the RACT CTG
requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS: Auto and light-duty truck
assembly coatings CTG; fiberglass boat manufacturing materials CTG;
flat wood paneling coatings CTG; flexible packaging printing
materials CTG; Control Techniques Guidelines for Industrial Cleaning
Solvents (Publication No. EPA 453/R-06-001; September 2006)
(industrial cleaning solvents CTG); large appliance coatings CTG;
metal furniture coatings CTG; Control Techniques Guidelines for
Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives (Publication No. EPA 453/R-08-
005; September 2008) (miscellaneous industrial adhesives CTG);
Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic
Parts Coatings (Publication No. EPA 453/R-08-003; September 2008)
(miscellaneous metal products coatings and plastic parts coatings
CTGs); Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic
Printing and Letterpress Printing (Publication No. EPA 453/R-06-002;
September 2006) (lithographic printing materials and letterpress
printing materials); and paper, film, and foil coatings CTG. These
CTGs were due one year from the date they were issued. Therefore,
they were not addressed in Virginia's October 23, 2006 submittal
addressing RACT requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other 1997 ozone NAAQS CTGs issued subsequent to Virginia's 2006
SIP submission include those covering flat wood paneling coatings,
flexible packaging printing materials, large appliance coatings, paper,
film, and foil coatings, metal furniture coatings, fiberglass boat
manufacturing materials, and auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings. However, no sources subject to these CTGs are located within
the Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Control
Area.\14\ Virginia therefore sent negative declaration letters to EPA
on November 25, 2008 for the flat wood paneling coatings CTG and
flexible packaging printing materials CTG, on December 3, 2008 for the
large appliance coatings CTG, paper, film, and foil coatings CTG, and
metal furniture coatings CTG, on May 6, 2009 for the fiberglass boat
manufacturing materials CTG, and on May 18, 2009 for the auto and
light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG.\15\ These
[[Page 15113]]
negative declaration letters certified that there are no sources
located in the Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
Control Area subject to the RACT VOC CTGs for fiberglass boat
manufacturing materials and auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings
and no sources located in the Commonwealth of Virginia subject to the
RACT VOC CTGs for large appliance coatings, paper, film, and foil
coatings, metal furniture coatings, flat wood paneling coatings, and
flexible packaging printing materials. Virginia has recently re-
certified that there are no sources located in the relevant Control
Area subject to these same CTGs as part of its December 12, 2017 SIP
submission addressing Virginia's RACT obligations under the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.\16\ In addition, EPA consulted the latest version of EPA's
National Emissions Inventory (2014 NEI v2) and confirmed that no
facilities subject to these CTGs were found in Virginia's portion of
the Washington Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
Control Area consists of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince
William, and Stafford Counties as well as the cities of Alexandria,
Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, Manassas Park and therefore
includes Virginia's portion of the Washington Area plus Stafford
County.
\15\ These negative declaration letters were submitted by
Virginia in order to meet section 105 grant commitments for 2009 and
2010 and are included in the docket for this rulemaking available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-
0215.
\16\ We note that RACT SIPs submitted to address the 2008 ozone
NAAQS are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation
under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). As explained in the
August 8, 2018 NPRM, EPA has interpreted the CAA section 184
requirements, including reasonable available control technology
(RACT), as not applicable under these provisions because they apply
to the Washington Area pursuant to the Area's inclusion in the ozone
transport region (OTR), and are not tied to the area's designation
status. See 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR
24826, 24830-24832 (May 7, 1997). Therefore, the Washington Area
will remain subject to the requirements of CAA section 184,
including RACT, even after redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: Earthjustice stated that EPA cannot approve the proposed
maintenance plan because the contingency measures do not include
implementation of ``all measures with respect to the control of the air
pollutant concerned which were contained in the State implementation
plan for the area before redesignation of the area.'' See CAA section
175A(d).
EPA Response: The District, Maryland, and Virginia are not moving
any of their existing SIP-approved measures into the contingency plan.
These measures remain part of their active SIPs. Therefore, these
measures are not included as part of the contingency plan in the
maintenance plan for the Washington Area. The District's, Maryland's,
and Virginia's maintenance plan states, ``This maintenance plan
includes a commitment to continue to enforce all applicable
requirements of past revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP)
after the ozone nonattainment area is redesignated to attainment.''
\17\ On February 26, 2019, February 27, 2019, and February 6, 2019, EPA
received letters from the District, Maryland, and Virginia,
respectively, clarifying that this statement in the maintenance plan
was intended to mean that, in accordance with section 175A(d) of the
CAA, the District, Maryland, and Virginia will implement all measures,
with respect to the control of ozone, that were contained in the SIPs
for the Washington Area prior to redesignation of the Area to
attainment and that any measures currently in the District's,
Maryland's, and Virginia's SIPs, with respect to the control of ozone,
will be retained as contingency measures for the 20-year maintenance
period following redesignation of the Washington Area to attainment for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\18\ Therefore, EPA finds that the maintenance
plan for the Washington Area satisfies the requirement of CAA section
175A(d) referenced in Earthjustice's comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See pages 11 and 15-17 of the ``Maintenance Plan for the
Washington DC-MD-VA 2008 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area,'' prepared
by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, December 20,
2017 included in the docket for this rulemaking available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215.
\18\ These February 26, 2019, February 27, 2019, and February 6,
2019 clarifying letters from the District, Maryland, and Virginia,
respectively, are included in the docket for this rulemaking
available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-
OAR-2018-0215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: Earthjustice commented that EPA cannot approve the
maintenance plan because EPA proposed to approve ``a commitment to
adopt contingency measures to address violations'' as a contingency
measure. Earthjustice stated that EPA cannot approve the contingency
measures in the maintenance plan because the commitment to adopt
contingency measures to address violations is a ``promise to do later
what's required now'' by CAA section 175A(d).
EPA Response: Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include contingency provisions, as necessary, to
promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation of the area. States are not required to have fully-
adopted contingency measures in their SIP in order for the maintenance
plan to be approved.\19\ Contingency measures are adopted and
implemented by a State if a violation of the NAAQS occurs in the
maintenance area or if a triggering event (also referred to as an
``indicator'') identified by the State in its maintenance plan
occurs.\20\ The District's, Maryland's, and Virginia's joint
maintenance plan identifies specific measures that EPA has found to be
appropriate to use as contingency measures.\21\ In addition to these
measures, the District, Maryland, and Virginia commit in their
maintenance plan to adopt, as SIP revisions, additional contingency
measures if necessary to address a violation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
the Washington Area. This commitment strengthens the contingency
measures in the maintenance plan by providing assurance that if a
violation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS occurs in the Washington Area that
may not be responsive using the existing contingency measures in the
maintenance plan, the District, Maryland, and Virginia can assess the
specific cause of the violation and adopt appropriate, tailored
contingency measures as necessary. The contingency measures included in
the District's, Maryland's, and Virginia's maintenance plan satisfy the
requirements for contingency measures in CAA section 175A as well as
the Calcagni memorandum.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (the ``Calcagni
memorandum'') included in the docket for this rulemaking available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-
0215.
\20\ The Calcagni memorandum states that the State should
identify in the maintenance plan specific indicators, or
``triggers'', to be used to determine when the contingency measures
need to be implemented.
\21\ See the discussion of the contingency measures included in
the District's, Maryland's, and Virginia's maintenance plan in the
August 8, 2018 NPRM as well as the July 19, 2018 ``Technical Support
Document for the Approval of the Maryland and Virginia Redesignation
Requests and District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia
Maintenance Plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 2008 Ozone Standard
Nonattainment Area'' included in the docket for this rulemaking
available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-
OAR-2018-0215.
\22\ For a detailed analysis of the contingency measures
included in the District's, Maryland's, and Virginia's maintenance
plan, see the August 8, 2018 NPRM as well as the July 19, 2018
``Technical Support Document for the Approval of the Maryland and
Virginia Redesignation Requests and District of Columbia, Maryland,
and Virginia Maintenance Plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 2008
Ozone Standard Nonattainment Area'' included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5: Earthjustice commented that if EPA approves the proposed
redesignation, EPA ``should make clear in the final action that the
redesignation does not affect obligations that apply via the Washington
nonattainment area's severe classification under the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS.''
[[Page 15114]]
EPA Response: EPA's approval of Maryland's and Virginia's
redesignation requests for the Washington Area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
and the associated maintenance plan submitted by the District,
Maryland, and Virginia pertains to the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the anti-
backsliding requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and does not affect
obligations that apply under 40 CFR 51.905(a) for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 882 F.3d 1138, 1151
(D.C. Cir. 2018).
Comment 6: Earthjustice stated that EPA should not finalize the
August 8, 2018 NPRM nor redesignate the Washington Area to attainment
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with Earthjustice's comment that EPA
should not finalize the August 8, 2018 NPRM. EPA finds that Maryland's
and Virginia's portions of the Washington Area satisfy the requirements
for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. EPA also still finds that the joint maintenance plan submitted
by the District, Maryland, and Virginia for the Washington Area
satisfies the requirements of CAA section 175A. Therefore, EPA is
approving the requests from Maryland and Virginia to redesignate to
attainment their respective portions of the Washington Area for the
2008 ozone NAAQS as well as the joint maintenance plan submitted by the
District, Maryland, and Virginia.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving the requests from Maryland and Virginia to
redesignate to attainment their respective portions of the Washington
Area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is not at this time approving the
redesignation request from the District but will address the District's
redesignation request in a separate rulemaking action. EPA is also
approving, as a revision to the District's, Maryland's, and Virginia's
SIPs, the joint maintenance plan submitted by the District, Maryland,
and Virginia. The joint maintenance plan demonstrates maintenance of
the 2008 ozone NAAQS through 2030 in the Washington Area and includes
2014, 2025, and 2030 MVEBs for NOX and VOCs for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Finally, EPA has found adequate and is approving these
2014, 2025, and 2030 NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Washington
Area.
V. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their federal counterparts. . . .'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec. 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the air quality designation status
of geographical areas and do not impose any additional regulatory
requirements on sources beyond those required by state law. A
redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself impose any new
requirements, but rather results in the application of requirements
contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to
attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735,
[[Page 15115]]
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 14, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action approving Maryland's and Virginia's redesignation
requests for their respective portions of the Washington Area as well
as the District's, Maryland's, and Virginia's maintenance plan for the
Washington Area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce
its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: March 19, 2019.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
Title 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart J--District of Columbia
0
2. In Sec. 52.470, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``Maintenance plan for the District of Columbia portion of
the Washington, DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' at the end of the table to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.470 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable State
revision geographic area submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance plan for the District of 3/12/18 4/15/2019, [Insert Sec. 52.476(j).
District of Columbia portion Columbia. Federal Register
of the Washington, DC-MD-VA citation].
Nonattainment Area for the
2008 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Section 52.476 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.476 Control strategy: ozone.
* * * * *
(j) EPA approves the maintenance plan for the District of Columbia
portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS submitted by the Director of the District of Columbia
Department of Energy and Environment on March 12, 2018. The maintenance
plan includes 2014, 2025, and 2030 motor vehicle emission budgets
[[Page 15116]]
(MVEBs) for VOC and NOX to be applied to all future
transportation conformity determinations and analyses for the entire
Washington, DC-MD-VA area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
maintenance plan includes two sets of VOC and NOX MVEBs: The
MVEBs without transportation buffers are effective as EPA has
determined them adequate for transportation conformity purposes; the
MVEBs with transportation buffers will be used only as needed in
situations where the conformity analysis must be based on different
data, models, or planning assumptions, including, but not limited to,
updates to demographic, land use, or project-related assumptions, than
were used to create the set of MVEBs without transportation buffers.
The technical analyses used to demonstrate compliance with the MVEBs
and the need, if any, to use transportation buffers will be fully
documented in the conformity analysis and follow the Transportation
Planning Board's (TPB) interagency consultation procedures.
Table 3 to Paragraph (j)--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date of
Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOX (TPD) adequacy determination
of SIP approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Plan...................... 2014 61.3 136.8 5/15/2019.
2025 33.2 40.7
2030 24.1 27.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 to Paragraph (j)--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets With Transportation Buffers for the Washington, DC-MD-
VA Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date of
Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOX (TPD) adequacy determination
of SIP approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Plan...................... 2014 61.3 136.8 Contingent and effective
2025 39.8 48.8 upon interagency
2030 28.9 32.9 consultation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart V--Maryland
0
4. In Sec. 52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``Maintenance plan for the Maryland portion of the
Washington, DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' at the end of the table to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1070 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable State
revision geographic area submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Maintenance plan for the Calvert, Charles, 2/5/2018 4/15/2019, [Insert Sec. 52.1076(ee).
Maryland portion of the Frederick, Federal Register
Washington, DC-MD-VA Montgomery, and citation].
Nonattainment Area for the Prince George's
2008 8-hour ozone National Counties.
Ambient Air Quality Standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
5. Section 52.1076 is amended by adding paragraph (ee) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1076 Control strategy plans for attainment and rate-of-
progress: Ozone.
* * * * *
(ee) EPA approves the maintenance plan for the Maryland portion of
the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS submitted by the Secretary of the Maryland Department of the
Environment on February 5, 2018. The maintenance plan includes 2014,
2025, and 2030 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for VOC and
NOX to be applied to all future transportation conformity
determinations and analyses for the entire Washington, DC-MD-VA area
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan includes two sets
of VOC and NOX MVEBs: The MVEBs without transportation
buffers are effective as EPA has determined them adequate for
transportation conformity purposes; the MVEBs with transportation
buffers will be used only as needed in situations where the conformity
analysis must be based on different data, models, or planning
assumptions, including, but not limited to, updates to demographic,
land use, or project-related assumptions, than were used to create the
set of MVEBs without transportation buffers. The technical analyses
used to demonstrate compliance with the MVEBs and the need, if any, to
use transportation buffers will be fully documented in the conformity
analysis and follow the Transportation Planning Board's (TPB)
interagency consultation procedures.
[[Page 15117]]
Table 9 to Paragraph (ee)--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date of
Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOX (TPD) adequacy determination
of SIP approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Plan...................... 2014 61.3 136.8 5/15/2019.
2025 33.2 24.1
2030 40.7 27.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 10 to Paragraph (ee)--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets With Transportation Buffers for the Washington, DC-
MD-VA Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date of
Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOX (TPD) adequacy determination
of SIP approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Plan...................... 2014 61.3 136.8 Contingent and effective
2025 39.8 48.8 upon interagency
2030 28.9 32.9 consultation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart VV--Virginia
0
6. In Sec. 52.2420, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
an entry for ``Maintenance plan for the Virginia portion of the
Washington, DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' at the end of the table to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2420 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable State
revision geographic area submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Maintenance plan for the Arlington, 1/3/18 4/15/2019, [Insert Sec. 52.2428(m).
Virginia portion of the Fairfax, Loudoun, Federal Register
Washington, DC-MD-VA and Prince citation].
Nonattainment Area for the William Counties
2008 8-hour ozone National and the Cities of
Ambient Air Quality Standard. Alexandria,
Fairfax, Falls
Church, Manassas,
and Manassas Park.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
7. Section 52.2428 is amended by adding paragraph (m) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2428 Control Strategy: Carbon monoxide and ozone.
* * * * *
(m) EPA approves the maintenance plan for the Virginia portion of
the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS submitted by the Director of the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality on January 3, 2018. The maintenance plan includes
2014, 2025, and 2030 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for VOC and
NOX to be applied to all future transportation conformity
determinations and analyses for the entire Washington, DC-MD-VA area
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan includes two sets
of VOC and NOX MVEBs: The MVEBs without transportation
buffers are effective as EPA has determined them adequate for
transportation conformity purposes; the MVEBs with transportation
buffers will be used only as needed in situations where the conformity
analysis must be based on different data, models, or planning
assumptions, including, but not limited to, updates to demographic,
land use, or project-related assumptions, than were used to create the
set of MVEBs without transportation buffers. The technical analyses
used to demonstrate compliance with the MVEBs and the need, if any, to
use transportation buffers will be fully documented in the conformity
analysis and follow the Transportation Planning Board's (TPB)
interagency consultation procedures.
Table 3 to Paragraph (m)--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date of
Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOX (TPD) adequacy determination
of SIP approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Plan...................... 2014 61.3 136.8 5/15/2019.
2025 33.2 40.7
2030 24.1 27.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15118]]
Table 4 to Paragraph (m)--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets With Transportation Buffers for the Washington, DC-MD-
VA Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date of
Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOX (TPD) adequacy determination
of SIP approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Plan...................... 2014 61.3 136.8 Contingent and effective
2025 39.8 48.8 upon interagency
2030 28.9 32.9 consultation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES
0
8. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations
0
9. In Sec. 81.321, the table ``Maryland--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
(Primary and secondary)'' is amended by revising the entry
``Washington, DC-MD-VA:'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.321 Maryland.
* * * * *
Maryland--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date\1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Washington, DC-MD-VA: \2\....... April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Calvert County.............. April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Charles County.............. April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Frederick County............ April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Montgomery County........... April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Prince George's County...... April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
10. In Sec. 81.347, the table ``Virginia--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
(Primary and secondary)'' is amended by:
0
a. Removing the footnote designation from the table heading
``Designated area'';
0
b. Revising the footnote designations for both ``Date'' table headings;
and
0
c. Revising the entry ``Washington, DC-MD-VA:''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 81.347 Virginia.
* * * * *
Virginia--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date\1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington, DC-MD-VA: \2\....... April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Arlington County............ April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Fairfax County.............. April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Loudoun County.............. April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Prince William County....... April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Alexandria City............. April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Fairfax City................ April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Falls Church City........... April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Manassas City............... April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Manassas Park City.......... April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
[[Page 15119]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-06128 Filed 4-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
