Air Plan Approval; Maryland; 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Limited Maintenance Plan for the Kent and Queen Anne's Counties Area, 26907-26911 [2020-09373]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
SUBCHAPTER C—SUBMISSION OF
ROYALTY CLAIMS
§ 360.5
PART 360—FILING OF CLAIMS TO
ROYALTY FEES COLLECTED UNDER
COMPULSORY LICENSE
Subpart B—Digital Audio Recording
Devices and Media (DART) Royalty
Claims
1. The authority citation for part 360
continues to read as follows:
■
■
■
Subpart A—Cable and Satellite Claims
[Amended]
2. Amend § 360.3 by:
a. In paragraph (b), removing the
words ‘‘or by mail or hand delivery in
accordance with § 301.2’’;
■ b. Removing paragraph (d); and
■ c. Redesignating paragraph (e) as
paragraph (d).
■ 3. Amend § 360.4 by:
■ a. Revising paragraph (a);
■ b. Removing paragraph (b)(1)(v);
■ c. Redesignating paragraph (b)(1)(vi)
as paragraph (b)(1)(v);
■ d. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(i);
■ e. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii), removing
the words ‘‘for claims submitted
through eCRB’’;
■ f. Removing paragraph (b)(2)(v); and
■ g. Redesignating paragraph (b)(2)(vi)
as paragraph (b)(2)(v).
The revisions read as follows:
■
■
§ 360.4
Form and content of claims.
21:25 May 05, 2020
Jkt 250001
5. Amend § 360.22 by:
a. Revising paragraph (a);
■ b. In paragraph (b)(2), removing the
words ‘‘for claims submitted through
eCRB’’;
■ c. Removing paragraph (c);
■ d. Redesignating paragraphs (d), (e),
and (f) as paragraphs (c), (d), and (e)
respectively; and
■ e. Revising newly redesignated
paragraph (d).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 360.22
(a) Electronic filing. (1) Each filer
must file claims online using the claims
filing feature of eCRB to claim cable
compulsory license royalty fees or
satellite compulsory license royalty fees
and must provide all information
required by the online form and its
accompanying instructions.
(2) Filers may access eCRB at https://
app.crb.gov. The claims filing feature for
claims to cable compulsory license
royalty fees and satellite compulsory
license royalty fees will be available
only during the month of July.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) With the exception of joint claims
filed by a performing rights society on
behalf of its members, a list including
the full legal name, address, and email
address of each copyright owner whose
claim(s) are included in the joint claim.
Claims must include an Excel
spreadsheet containing the information
if the number of joint claimants is in
excess of ten.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
§ 360.30
■
Authority: 17 U.S.C. 801, 803, 805.
Subpart A also issued under 17 U.S.C.
111(d)(4) and 119(b)(4).
Subpart B also issued under 17 U.S.C.
1007(a)(1).
Subpart C also issued under 17 U.S.C.
111(d)(4), 119(b)(4) and 1007(a)(1).
§ 360.3
[Removed]
4. Remove § 360.5.
Form and content of claims.
(a) Electronic filing. (1) Each claim to
DART royalty payments must be filed
online using the claims filing feature of
eCRB and must contain the information
required by the online form and its
accompanying instructions.
(2) Filers may access eCRB at https://
app.crb.gov. The claims filing feature for
claims to DART royalty payments will
be available only during the months of
January and February.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) List of claimants. If the claim is a
joint claim, it must include the name of
each claimant participating in the joint
claim. Filers submitting joint claims on
behalf of ten or fewer claimants, must
list the name of each claimant included
in the joint claim directly on the filed
joint claim. Filers submitting joint
claims on behalf of more than ten
claimants must include an Excel
spreadsheet listing the name of each
claimant included in the joint claim.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 360.23
■
[Removed]
6. Remove § 360.23.
§ 360.24 [Redesignated as § 360.23 and
Amended]
7. Amend § 360.24 by:
a. Redesignating § 360.24 as § 360.23;
and
■ b. In paragraph (b) of newly
redesignated § 360.23, adding the words
‘‘online through eCRB’’ after the word
‘‘notice’’.
■
■
Subpart C—Rules of General
Application
8. Amend § 360.30 by adding the
sentence ‘‘All Notices of Amendment
must be filed online through eCRB.’’ at
the end of the paragraph to read as
follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26907
Amendment of claims.
* * * All Notices of Amendment
must be filed online through eCRB.
■ 9. Amend § 360.31 by adding the
sentence ‘‘All Notices of Withdrawal of
Claim(s) must be filed online through
eCRB.’’ at the end of the paragraph to
read as follows:
§ 360.31
Withdrawal of claims.
* * * All Notices of Withdrawal of
Claim(s) must be filed online through
eCRB.
Dated: April 22, 2020.
Jesse M. Feder,
Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.
[FR Doc. 2020–08926 Filed 5–5–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–72–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2020–0062; FRL–10008–
86–Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; Maryland; 1997 8Hour Ozone NAAQS Limited
Maintenance Plan for the Kent and
Queen Anne’s Counties Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Maryland.
This revision pertains to the Maryland
Department of the Environment’s (MDE)
plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for the Kent and
Queen Anne’s Counties area. This
action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before June 5, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2020–0062 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
confidential business information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06MYP1.SGM
06MYP1
26908
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Talley, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air &
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103. The telephone number is (215)
814–2117. Mr. Talley can also be
reached via electronic mail at
talley.david@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 18, 2019, MDE submitted a
revision to the Maryland SIP to
incorporate a plan for maintaining the
1997 ozone NAAQS through January 1,
2028, in accordance with CAA section
175A. On March 12, 2020, MDE
submitted a technical correction to their
initial submittal, which included
‘‘Appendix B—2014 Emissions
Inventory Methodology
Documentation.’’ This appendix had
been inadvertently omitted from the
original submittal.
I. Background
In 1979, under section 109 of the
CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12
parts per million (ppm), averaged over
a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February
8, 1979). On July 18, 1997, EPA revised
the primary and secondary NAAQS for
ozone to set the acceptable level of
ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm,
averaged over an 8-hour period. 62 FR
38856 (July 18, 1997).1 EPA set the 8hour ozone NAAQS based on scientific
evidence demonstrating that ozone
causes adverse health effects at lower
concentrations and over longer periods
of time than was understood when the
1 In March 2008, EPA completed another review
of the primary and secondary ozone standards and
tightened them further by lowering the level for
both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a
review of the primary and secondary ozone
standards and tightened them by lowering the level
for both to 0.70 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26,
2015).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:25 May 05, 2020
Jkt 250001
pre-existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS was
set.
Following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the
CAA to designate areas throughout the
nation as attaining or not attaining the
NAAQS. On April 30, 2004, EPA
designated the Kent and Queen Anne’s
Counties area as nonattainment for the
1997 8-hr ozone NAAQS. 69 FR 23858.
Once a nonattainment area has three
years of complete, certified air quality
data that has been determined to attain
the NAAQS, and the area has met the
other criteria outlined in CAA section
107(d)(3)(E),2 the state can submit a
request to EPA to redesignate the area to
attainment. Areas that have been
redesignated by EPA from
nonattainment to attainment are referred
to as ‘‘maintenance areas.’’ One of the
criteria for redesignation is to have an
approved maintenance plan under CAA
section 175A. The maintenance plan
must demonstrate that the area will
continue to maintain the standard for
the period extending 10 years after
redesignation, and it must contain such
additional measures as necessary to
ensure maintenance as well contingency
measures as necessary to assure that
violations of the standard will be
promptly corrected.
On December 22, 2006 (effective
January 22, 2007), EPA approved a
redesignation request (and maintenance
plan) from MDE for the Kent and Queen
Anne’s Counties area. 71 FR 76920. In
accordance with section 175A(b), at the
end of the eighth year after the effective
date of the redesignation, the state must
also submit a second maintenance plan
to ensure ongoing maintenance of the
standard for an additional 10 years.
EPA’s final implementation rule for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS revoked the
1997 ozone NAAQS and provided that
one consequence of revocation was that
areas that had been redesignated to
attainment (i.e., maintenance areas) for
the 1997 NAAQS no longer needed to
submit second 10-year maintenance
plans under CAA section 175A(b).3
However, in South Coast Air Quality
Management District v. EPA 4 (South
Coast II), the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
(D.C. Circuit) vacated EPA’s
interpretation that, because of the
2 The requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)
include attainment of the NAAQS, full approval
under section 110(k) of the applicable SIP,
determination that improvement in air quality is a
result of permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions, demonstration that the state has met all
applicable section 110 and part D requirements, and
a fully approved maintenance plan under CAA
section 175A.
3 See 80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015).
4 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
revocation of the 1997 ozone standard,
second maintenance plans were not
required for ‘‘orphan maintenance
areas,’’ (i.e., areas like Kent and Queen
Anne’s Counties) that had been
redesignated to attainment for the 1997
NAAQS and were designated attainment
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Thus, states
with these ‘‘orphan maintenance areas’’
under the 1997 ozone NAAQS must
submit maintenance plans for the
second maintenance period.
As previously discussed, CAA section
175A sets forth the criteria for adequate
maintenance plans. In addition, EPA
has published longstanding guidance
that provides further insight on the
content of an approvable maintenance
plan, explaining that a maintenance
plan should address five elements: (1)
An attainment emissions inventory; (2)
a maintenance demonstration; (3) a
commitment for continued air quality
monitoring; (4) a process for verification
of continued attainment; and (5) a
contingency plan.5 The 1992 Calcagni
memo provides that states may
generally demonstrate maintenance by
either performing air quality modeling
to show that the future mix of sources
and emission rates will not cause a
violation of the NAAQS or by showing
that future emissions of a pollutant and
its precursors will not exceed the level
of emissions during a year when the
area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e.,
attainment year inventory). See Calcagni
Memo at p. 9. EPA further clarified in
three subsequent guidance memos
describing ‘‘limited maintenance plans’’
(LMPs) 6 that the requirements of CAA
section 175A could be met by
demonstrating that the area’s design
value 7 was well below the NAAQS and
that the historical stability of the area’s
air quality levels showed that the area
was unlikely to violate the NAAQS in
the future. Specifically, EPA believes
that if the most recent air quality design
value for the area is at a level that is
below 85% of the standard, or in this
5 ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni
Memo).
6 See ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable Ozone Nonattainment Areas’’ from
Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas’’ from
Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6, 1995; and
‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas’’ from Lydia Wegman,
OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001.
7 The ozone design value for a monitoring site is
the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations.
The design value for an ozone nonattainment area
is the highest design value of any monitoring site
in the area.
E:\FR\FM\06MYP1.SGM
06MYP1
26909
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
case below 0.071 ppm, then EPA
considers the state to have met the
section 175A requirement for a
demonstration that the area will
maintain the NAAQS for the requisite
period. Accordingly, on December 18,
2019, MDE submitted an LMP for the
Kent and Queen Anne’s Counties area,
demonstrating that the area will
maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS
through January 1, 2028, i.e., through
the entire 20-year maintenance period.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Analysis
MDE’s December 18, 2019 SIP
submittal outlines a plan for continued
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
which addresses the criteria set forth in
the Calcagni Memo as follows.
A. Attainment Emissions Inventory
A state should develop a
comprehensive and accurate inventory
of actual emissions for an attainment
year which identifies the level of
emissions in the area which is sufficient
to maintain the NAAQS. The inventory
should be developed consistent with
EPA’s most recent guidance. For ozone,
the inventory should be based on
typical summer day’s emissions of
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC), the
precursors to ozone formation.
Table 1 presents a summary of the
2014 inventories submitted in the
maintenance plan.
TABLE 1—2014 TYPICAL SUMMER DAY VOC AND NOX EMISSIONS
[tons/day] 8
Area
Source category
Kent County ..................................................................
Nonroad ........................................................................
Onroad ..........................................................................
Point Source .................................................................
Area Source ..................................................................
Nonroad ........................................................................
Onroad ..........................................................................
Point Source .................................................................
Area Source ..................................................................
2.49
0.42
0.04
0.82
2.63
1.10
0.03
1.97
1.23
0.96
0.23
0.05
1.60
3.69
0.05
0.09
.......................................................................................
9.50
7.90
Queen Anne’s County ..................................................
Total .......................................................................
The 2014 emissions inventory was
prepared by MDE and uploaded into
EPA’s Emissions Inventory System (EIS)
for inclusion in EPA’s National
Emission Inventory (NEI). The inventory
addresses four anthropogenic emission
source categories: Stationary (point)
sources, stationary nonpoint (area)
sources, nonroad mobile, and on-road
mobile sources. Point sources are
stationary sources that have the
potential to emit (pte) more than 100
tons per year (tpy) of VOC, or more than
50 tpy of NOX, and which are required
to obtain an operating permit. Data are
collected for each source at a facility
and reported to MDE. Stationary area
sources have relatively low emissions
individually, but due to the large
number of sources, cumulative
emissions could be significant.
Examples include fuel combustion for
household heating. Emissions are
estimated by using emission factors and
known variables such as population, or
number of households. On-road mobile
emissions are modelled by MDE using
EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission
Simulator (MOVES). MDE generates
nonroad mobile source emissions data
through the use of EPA’s
NONROAD2014a model, except for
marine air and rail emissions which are
estimated at the county level based on
emission factors and activity levels. EPA
reviewed the supporting documentation
submitted by MDE 9 and proposes to
conclude that the plan’s inventory is
acceptable for the purposes of a
subsequent maintenance plan under
CAA section 175A(b).
B. Maintenance Demonstration
In order to attain the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, the three-year average of the
fourth-highest daily average ozone
concentrations (design value, DV) at
each monitor within an area must not
exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on the
rounding convention described in 40
CFR part 50, appendix I, the standard is
attained if the DV is 0.084 ppm or
VOC
NOX
below. CAA section 175A requires a
demonstration that the area will
continue to maintain the NAAQS
throughout the duration of the requisite
maintenance period. Consistent with the
prior guidance documents discussed
previously in this document, EPA
believes that if the most recent DV for
the area is well below the NAAQS (e.g.,
below 85%, or in this case below 0.071
ppm), the section 175A demonstration
requirement has been met, provided that
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
requirements, any control measures
already in the SIP, and any Federal
measures remain in place through the
end of the second 10-year maintenance
period (absent a showing consistent
with section 110(l) that such measures
are not necessary to assure
maintenance). Table 2 shows that the
last two DVs for the Kent and Queen
Anne’s County area continue to be
below 85% of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.10
TABLE 2—RECENT AIR QUALITY VALUES FOR KENT AND QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTIES
Design value
years
Designated area
Kent and Queen Anne’s Counties ....................................................................
8 Data in Table 1 have been rounded. See Table
4.1–1 of MDE’s December 18, 2019 submittal for
precise data.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:25 May 05, 2020
Jkt 250001
2015–2017
2016–2018
9 See Appendix B of MDE’s March 12, 2020
technical correction.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
AQS site ID
24–029–0002
24–029–0002
Design value
(DV)
0.070
0.069
DV <0.071
ppm?
Yes.
Yes.
10 The 2016–2018 DV was published by EPA after
the date of MDE’s submittal. See https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-07/ozone_
designvalues_20162018_final_06_28_19.xlsx.
E:\FR\FM\06MYP1.SGM
06MYP1
26910
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Additionally, states can support the
demonstration of continued
maintenance by showing stable or
improving air quality trends. Several
kinds of analyses can be performed by
states wishing to make such a showing.
One approach is to take the most recent
DV for the area and add the biggest
increase that has been observed over the
past several years. A sum that is still
below the NAAQS would be considered
a good indication of continued
attainment.11 Going back to the 2004–
2006 DV years, the largest increase in
DV was 0.008 ppm and occurred
between the 2009–2011 (0.074 ppm) and
the 2010–2012 (0.082 ppm) DV years.12
Adding 0.008 ppm to the most recent
DV of 0.069 ppm results in a sum that
is still below the NAAQS (0.077 ppm).
Therefore, EPA believes MDE has
satisfactorily demonstrated that future
violations of the NAAQS in this area are
unlikely.
C. Continued Air Quality Monitoring
and Verification of Continued
Attainment
Once an area has been redesignated to
attainment, the State remains obligated
to maintain an air quality network in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58, in
order to verify the area’s attainment
status. MDE monitors ambient ozone
concentrations at the Millington, MD
site (Air Quality System (AQS)) Site ID
24–029–0002). In the December 18, 2019
submittal, Maryland committed to
maintaining an appropriate air quality
monitoring network, in accordance with
part 58. MDE committed to track and
analyze any exceedances of the NAAQS
during the maintenance period.
D. Contingency Plan
CAA section 175A requires that each
maintenance plan include provisions
which require the state to maintain all
control measures which were in place in
the SIP prior to redesignation.
Additionally, each maintenance plan
must contain contingency measures
sufficient to assure that the state will
promptly correct violations of the
NAAQS after the area is redesignated as
an attainment area.
MDE’s December 18, 2019 submittal
outlines its foundation control program,
which is intended to prevent violations
of the NAAQS. MDE committed to
continued implementation of the SIP
measures for the control of NOX and
VOC which were in place prior to
redesignation. These include the Tier 3
Vehicle Emissions and Control Program,
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Programs, and standards for various
nonroad engines.13
MDE’s December 18, 2019 submittal
also included a contingency plan, to be
implemented in the event of NAAQS
violations in the future. MDE listed two
specific regulatory measures which will
be evaluated and implemented through
the promulgation of a rule in the event
that the contingency plan is triggered.
First, MDE will consider accelerating
compliance with Code of Maryland
Regulations (COMAR) section
26.11.13.07 (Control of VOC Emissions
from Portable Fuel Containers) by
creating a voluntary portable fuel
container exchange program affecting
residences and businesses. Second,
MDE will consider lowering the
applicability threshold for industrial,
commercial, and institutional (ICI)
boiler standards under COMAR
26.11.09.08, potentially impacting the
sources listed in Table 3.
TABLE 3—SOURCES POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY LOWER APPLICABILITY THRESHOLDS
Queen Anne’s County
Kent County
Chesapeake College ................................................................................
Kent Narrows Waste Water Treatment Plant ...........................................
Queen Anne’s County Emergency Center ...............................................
Chesapeake Bay Bridge Maintenance and Administration Facility .........
Centerville Town Hall and Sheriff’s Department ......................................
Queenstown Town Offices and Courthouse ............................................
County Health Department .......................................................................
County Board of Education ......................................................................
County Courthouse ...................................................................................
County Department of Public Works ........................................................
Maryland SHA Garage .............................................................................
Maryland State Police.
National Guard Armory.
County Schools.
Washington College.
Kent and Queen Anne’s Hospital.
Wenger’s Feed Mill.
Kent County Public Works and Roads Building.
Monsanto-Asgrow Seeds.
Maryland SHA District 2 Office.
Maryland State Police.
National Guard Armory.
County Courthouse.
Chestertown Filtration Plant.
County Schools.
MDE’s contingency plan also includes
the possibility of implementing other
measures as necessary in order to return
the area to attainment.
After the fourth ozone season
exceedance of the 1997 NAAQS (0.08
ppm) at the Millington monitoring
station, MDE will immediately
recalculate the DV for that monitor. If
the recalculated DV exceeds the
NAAQS, the contingency plan will be
‘‘triggered,’’ based on the following
schedule: (1) Within two weeks of the
trigger, MDE will notify Kent and Queen
Anne’s Counties and other stakeholders
and schedule a meeting concerning the
selection and implementation of
contingency measures; (2) Within six
weeks of the trigger, the meeting will be
convened; (3) Within twelve weeks of
the trigger, a public meeting will be held
on the proposed contingency measures;
(4) Within eighteen weeks of the trigger,
all stakeholders will convene to
consider public comments and finalize
a list of planned contingency measures;
(5) After the list of contingency
measures is finalized, it will take
approximately twelve months to
complete any required rulemaking
processes; (6) Within twenty four
months of the trigger, agreed upon
contingency measure will be
implemented in the impacted counties.
11 See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/
2018-11/documents/ozone_1997_naaqs_lmp_
resource_document_nov_20_2018.pdf at pgs. 6–7.
12 See Tables 3.1–1 and 3.2–2 of MDE’s December
18, 2019 submittal found at https://
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2020–0062.
13 See MDE’s December 18, 2019 submittal at pgs.
10–12.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:25 May 05, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E. Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity is required
by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that
transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay
E:\FR\FM\06MYP1.SGM
06MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules
timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA
176(c)(1)(B)). EPA’s conformity rule at
40 CFR part 93 requires that
transportation plans, programs and
projects conform to SIPs and establish
the criteria and procedures for
determining whether or not they
conform. The conformity rule generally
requires a demonstration that emissions
from the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) are
consistent with the motor vehicle
emissions budget (MVEB) contained in
the control strategy SIP revision or
maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101,
93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is defined
as ‘‘that portion of the total allowable
emissions defined in the submitted or
approved control strategy
implementation plan revision or
maintenance plan for a certain date for
the purpose of meeting reasonable
further progress milestones or
demonstrating attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS, for any
criteria pollutant or its precursors,
allocated to highway and transit vehicle
use and emissions (40 CFR 93.101).’’
Under the conformity rule, LMP areas
may demonstrate conformity without a
regional emission analysis (40 CFR
93.109(e)). However, because LMP areas
are still maintenance areas, certain
aspects of transportation conformity
determinations still will be required for
transportation plans, programs and
projects. Specifically, for such
determinations, RTPs, TIPs and
transportation projects still will have to
demonstrate that they are fiscally
constrained (40 CFR 93.108), meet the
criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105
and 40 CFR 93.112) and transportation
control measure implementation in the
conformity rule provisions (40 CFR
93.113). Additionally, conformity
determinations for RTPs and TIPs must
be determined no less frequently than
every four years, and conformity of
transportation plan and TIP
amendments and transportation projects
is demonstrated in accordance with the
timing requirements specified in 40 CFR
93.104. In addition, for projects to be
approved, they must come from a
currently conforming RTP and TIP (40
CFR 93.114 and 93.115).
III. Proposed Action
EPA’s review of MDE’s December 18,
2019 submittal and March 12, 2020
technical correction indicates they meet
CAA section 175A and all applicable
CAA requirements. EPA is proposing to
approve the LMP for Kent and Queen
Anne’s Counties as a revision to the
Maryland SIP. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:25 May 05, 2020
Jkt 250001
this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
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 SIP approvals are
exempted 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 (Public Law 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule,
pertaining Maryland’s limited
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26911
maintenance plan for Kent and Queen
Anne’s Counties, does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country located in the
State, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: April 27, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2020–09373 Filed 5–5–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA–R05–RCRA–2018–0376; FRL–10008–
91–Region 5]
Indiana: Proposed Authorization of
State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Indiana has applied to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for final authorization of changes to its
hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), as amended. EPA has
reviewed Indiana’s application and has
determined that these changes satisfy all
requirements needed to qualify for final
authorization. Therefore, we are
proposing to authorize the State’s
changes. EPA seeks public comment
prior to taking final action.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 22, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: gromnicki.jean@epa.gov.
Instructions: EPA must receive your
comments by June 22, 2020. Direct your
comments to Docket ID Number EPA–
R05–RCRA–2018–0376. EPA’s policy is
that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06MYP1.SGM
06MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 6, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26907-26911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09373]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0062; FRL-10008-86-Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; Maryland; 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Limited
Maintenance Plan for the Kent and Queen Anne's Counties Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Maryland. This revision pertains to the Maryland Department of
the Environment's (MDE) plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for the Kent and Queen
Anne's Counties area. This action is being taken under the Clean Air
Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 5, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0062 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
[[Page 26908]]
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI
or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2117. Mr. Talley can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 18, 2019, MDE submitted a
revision to the Maryland SIP to incorporate a plan for maintaining the
1997 ozone NAAQS through January 1, 2028, in accordance with CAA
section 175A. On March 12, 2020, MDE submitted a technical correction
to their initial submittal, which included ``Appendix B--2014 Emissions
Inventory Methodology Documentation.'' This appendix had been
inadvertently omitted from the original submittal.
I. Background
In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm), averaged
over a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997,
EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the
acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over
an 8-hour period. 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).\1\ EPA set the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone
causes adverse health effects at lower concentrations and over longer
periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone
NAAQS was set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering
the level for both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them by lowering the
level for both to 0.70 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 30, 2004, EPA designated the Kent and
Queen Anne's Counties area as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hr ozone
NAAQS. 69 FR 23858.
Once a nonattainment area has three years of complete, certified
air quality data that has been determined to attain the NAAQS, and the
area has met the other criteria outlined in CAA section
107(d)(3)(E),\2\ the state can submit a request to EPA to redesignate
the area to attainment. Areas that have been redesignated by EPA from
nonattainment to attainment are referred to as ``maintenance areas.''
One of the criteria for redesignation is to have an approved
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A. The maintenance plan must
demonstrate that the area will continue to maintain the standard for
the period extending 10 years after redesignation, and it must contain
such additional measures as necessary to ensure maintenance as well
contingency measures as necessary to assure that violations of the
standard will be promptly corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) include
attainment of the NAAQS, full approval under section 110(k) of the
applicable SIP, determination that improvement in air quality is a
result of permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions,
demonstration that the state has met all applicable section 110 and
part D requirements, and a fully approved maintenance plan under CAA
section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 22, 2006 (effective January 22, 2007), EPA approved a
redesignation request (and maintenance plan) from MDE for the Kent and
Queen Anne's Counties area. 71 FR 76920. In accordance with section
175A(b), at the end of the eighth year after the effective date of the
redesignation, the state must also submit a second maintenance plan to
ensure ongoing maintenance of the standard for an additional 10 years.
EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS revoked
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and provided that one consequence of revocation
was that areas that had been redesignated to attainment (i.e.,
maintenance areas) for the 1997 NAAQS no longer needed to submit second
10-year maintenance plans under CAA section 175A(b).\3\ However, in
South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA \4\ (South Coast
II), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
(D.C. Circuit) vacated EPA's interpretation that, because of the
revocation of the 1997 ozone standard, second maintenance plans were
not required for ``orphan maintenance areas,'' (i.e., areas like Kent
and Queen Anne's Counties) that had been redesignated to attainment for
the 1997 NAAQS and were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Thus, states with these ``orphan maintenance areas'' under the 1997
ozone NAAQS must submit maintenance plans for the second maintenance
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015).
\4\ 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously discussed, CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria
for adequate maintenance plans. In addition, EPA has published
longstanding guidance that provides further insight on the content of
an approvable maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan
should address five elements: (1) An attainment emissions inventory;
(2) a maintenance demonstration; (3) a commitment for continued air
quality monitoring; (4) a process for verification of continued
attainment; and (5) a contingency plan.\5\ The 1992 Calcagni memo
provides that states may generally demonstrate maintenance by either
performing air quality modeling to show that the future mix of sources
and emission rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by
showing that future emissions of a pollutant and its precursors will
not exceed the level of emissions during a year when the area was
attaining the NAAQS (i.e., attainment year inventory). See Calcagni
Memo at p. 9. EPA further clarified in three subsequent guidance memos
describing ``limited maintenance plans'' (LMPs) \6\ that the
requirements of CAA section 175A could be met by demonstrating that the
area's design value \7\ was well below the NAAQS and that the
historical stability of the area's air quality levels showed that the
area was unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future. Specifically, EPA
believes that if the most recent air quality design value for the area
is at a level that is below 85% of the standard, or in this
[[Page 26909]]
case below 0.071 ppm, then EPA considers the state to have met the
section 175A requirement for a demonstration that the area will
maintain the NAAQS for the requisite period. Accordingly, on December
18, 2019, MDE submitted an LMP for the Kent and Queen Anne's Counties
area, demonstrating that the area will maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS
through January 1, 2028, i.e., through the entire 20-year maintenance
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni Memo).
\6\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6,
1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS,
dated August 9, 2001.
\7\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone nonattainment
area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
MDE's December 18, 2019 SIP submittal outlines a plan for continued
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS which addresses the criteria set
forth in the Calcagni Memo as follows.
A. Attainment Emissions Inventory
A state should develop a comprehensive and accurate inventory of
actual emissions for an attainment year which identifies the level of
emissions in the area which is sufficient to maintain the NAAQS. The
inventory should be developed consistent with EPA's most recent
guidance. For ozone, the inventory should be based on typical summer
day's emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC), the precursors to ozone formation.
Table 1 presents a summary of the 2014 inventories submitted in the
maintenance plan.
Table 1--2014 Typical Summer Day VOC and NOX Emissions
[tons/day] 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Source category VOC NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent County................................... Nonroad......................... 2.49 1.23
Onroad.......................... 0.42 0.96
Point Source.................... 0.04 0.23
Area Source..................... 0.82 0.05
Queen Anne's County........................... Nonroad......................... 2.63 1.60
Onroad.......................... 1.10 3.69
Point Source.................... 0.03 0.05
Area Source..................... 1.97 0.09
-------------------------------
Total..................................... ................................ 9.50 7.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2014 emissions inventory was prepared by MDE and uploaded into
EPA's Emissions Inventory System (EIS) for inclusion in EPA's National
Emission Inventory (NEI). The inventory addresses four anthropogenic
emission source categories: Stationary (point) sources, stationary
nonpoint (area) sources, nonroad mobile, and on-road mobile sources.
Point sources are stationary sources that have the potential to emit
(pte) more than 100 tons per year (tpy) of VOC, or more than 50 tpy of
NOX, and which are required to obtain an operating permit.
Data are collected for each source at a facility and reported to MDE.
Stationary area sources have relatively low emissions individually, but
due to the large number of sources, cumulative emissions could be
significant. Examples include fuel combustion for household heating.
Emissions are estimated by using emission factors and known variables
such as population, or number of households. On-road mobile emissions
are modelled by MDE using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(MOVES). MDE generates nonroad mobile source emissions data through the
use of EPA's NONROAD2014a model, except for marine air and rail
emissions which are estimated at the county level based on emission
factors and activity levels. EPA reviewed the supporting documentation
submitted by MDE \9\ and proposes to conclude that the plan's inventory
is acceptable for the purposes of a subsequent maintenance plan under
CAA section 175A(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Data in Table 1 have been rounded. See Table 4.1-1 of MDE's
December 18, 2019 submittal for precise data.
\9\ See Appendix B of MDE's March 12, 2020 technical correction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Maintenance Demonstration
In order to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the three-year average of
the fourth-highest daily average ozone concentrations (design value,
DV) at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on
the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, the
standard is attained if the DV is 0.084 ppm or below. CAA section 175A
requires a demonstration that the area will continue to maintain the
NAAQS throughout the duration of the requisite maintenance period.
Consistent with the prior guidance documents discussed previously in
this document, EPA believes that if the most recent DV for the area is
well below the NAAQS (e.g., below 85%, or in this case below 0.071
ppm), the section 175A demonstration requirement has been met, provided
that Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements, any control
measures already in the SIP, and any Federal measures remain in place
through the end of the second 10-year maintenance period (absent a
showing consistent with section 110(l) that such measures are not
necessary to assure maintenance). Table 2 shows that the last two DVs
for the Kent and Queen Anne's County area continue to be below 85% of
the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The 2016-2018 DV was published by EPA after the date of
MDE's submittal. See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-07/ozone_designvalues_20162018_final_06_28_19.xlsx.
Table 2--Recent Air Quality Values for Kent and Queen Anne's Counties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design value Design value
Designated area years AQS site ID (DV) DV <0.071 ppm?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent and Queen Anne's Counties....... 2015-2017 24-029-0002 0.070 Yes.
2016-2018 24-029-0002 0.069 Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26910]]
Additionally, states can support the demonstration of continued
maintenance by showing stable or improving air quality trends. Several
kinds of analyses can be performed by states wishing to make such a
showing. One approach is to take the most recent DV for the area and
add the biggest increase that has been observed over the past several
years. A sum that is still below the NAAQS would be considered a good
indication of continued attainment.\11\ Going back to the 2004-2006 DV
years, the largest increase in DV was 0.008 ppm and occurred between
the 2009-2011 (0.074 ppm) and the 2010-2012 (0.082 ppm) DV years.\12\
Adding 0.008 ppm to the most recent DV of 0.069 ppm results in a sum
that is still below the NAAQS (0.077 ppm). Therefore, EPA believes MDE
has satisfactorily demonstrated that future violations of the NAAQS in
this area are unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/documents/ozone_1997_naaqs_lmp_resource_document_nov_20_2018.pdf at
pgs. 6-7.
\12\ See Tables 3.1-1 and 3.2-2 of MDE's December 18, 2019
submittal found at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-
R03-OAR-2020-0062.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Continued Air Quality Monitoring and Verification of Continued
Attainment
Once an area has been redesignated to attainment, the State remains
obligated to maintain an air quality network in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, in order to verify the area's attainment status. MDE monitors
ambient ozone concentrations at the Millington, MD site (Air Quality
System (AQS)) Site ID 24-029-0002). In the December 18, 2019 submittal,
Maryland committed to maintaining an appropriate air quality monitoring
network, in accordance with part 58. MDE committed to track and analyze
any exceedances of the NAAQS during the maintenance period.
D. Contingency Plan
CAA section 175A requires that each maintenance plan include
provisions which require the state to maintain all control measures
which were in place in the SIP prior to redesignation. Additionally,
each maintenance plan must contain contingency measures sufficient to
assure that the state will promptly correct violations of the NAAQS
after the area is redesignated as an attainment area.
MDE's December 18, 2019 submittal outlines its foundation control
program, which is intended to prevent violations of the NAAQS. MDE
committed to continued implementation of the SIP measures for the
control of NOX and VOC which were in place prior to
redesignation. These include the Tier 3 Vehicle Emissions and Control
Program, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs, and standards for
various nonroad engines.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See MDE's December 18, 2019 submittal at pgs. 10-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDE's December 18, 2019 submittal also included a contingency plan,
to be implemented in the event of NAAQS violations in the future. MDE
listed two specific regulatory measures which will be evaluated and
implemented through the promulgation of a rule in the event that the
contingency plan is triggered. First, MDE will consider accelerating
compliance with Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) section
26.11.13.07 (Control of VOC Emissions from Portable Fuel Containers) by
creating a voluntary portable fuel container exchange program affecting
residences and businesses. Second, MDE will consider lowering the
applicability threshold for industrial, commercial, and institutional
(ICI) boiler standards under COMAR 26.11.09.08, potentially impacting
the sources listed in Table 3.
Table 3--Sources Potentially Impacted by Lower Applicability Thresholds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Queen Anne's County Kent County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake College..................... Washington College.
Kent Narrows Waste Water Treatment Kent and Queen Anne's Hospital.
Plant.
Queen Anne's County Emergency Center... Wenger's Feed Mill.
Chesapeake Bay Bridge Maintenance and Kent County Public Works and
Administration Facility. Roads Building.
Centerville Town Hall and Sheriff's Monsanto-Asgrow Seeds.
Department.
Queenstown Town Offices and Courthouse. Maryland SHA District 2 Office.
County Health Department............... Maryland State Police.
County Board of Education.............. National Guard Armory.
County Courthouse...................... County Courthouse.
County Department of Public Works...... Chestertown Filtration Plant.
Maryland SHA Garage.................... County Schools.
Maryland State Police..................
National Guard Armory..................
County Schools.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDE's contingency plan also includes the possibility of
implementing other measures as necessary in order to return the area to
attainment.
After the fourth ozone season exceedance of the 1997 NAAQS (0.08
ppm) at the Millington monitoring station, MDE will immediately
recalculate the DV for that monitor. If the recalculated DV exceeds the
NAAQS, the contingency plan will be ``triggered,'' based on the
following schedule: (1) Within two weeks of the trigger, MDE will
notify Kent and Queen Anne's Counties and other stakeholders and
schedule a meeting concerning the selection and implementation of
contingency measures; (2) Within six weeks of the trigger, the meeting
will be convened; (3) Within twelve weeks of the trigger, a public
meeting will be held on the proposed contingency measures; (4) Within
eighteen weeks of the trigger, all stakeholders will convene to
consider public comments and finalize a list of planned contingency
measures; (5) After the list of contingency measures is finalized, it
will take approximately twelve months to complete any required
rulemaking processes; (6) Within twenty four months of the trigger,
agreed upon contingency measure will be implemented in the impacted
counties.
E. Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay
[[Page 26911]]
timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(1)(B)). EPA's conformity
rule at 40 CFR part 93 requires that transportation plans, programs and
projects conform to SIPs and establish the criteria and procedures for
determining whether or not they conform. The conformity rule generally
requires a demonstration that emissions from the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB)
contained in the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan (40
CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A MVEB is defined as ``that portion of
the total allowable emissions defined in the submitted or approved
control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance plan for a
certain date for the purpose of meeting reasonable further progress
milestones or demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, for
any criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated to highway and
transit vehicle use and emissions (40 CFR 93.101).''
Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity
without a regional emission analysis (40 CFR 93.109(e)). However,
because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain aspects of
transportation conformity determinations still will be required for
transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically, for such
determinations, RTPs, TIPs and transportation projects still will have
to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108), meet
the criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105 and 40 CFR 93.112) and
transportation control measure implementation in the conformity rule
provisions (40 CFR 93.113). Additionally, conformity determinations for
RTPs and TIPs must be determined no less frequently than every four
years, and conformity of transportation plan and TIP amendments and
transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing
requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104. In addition, for projects to
be approved, they must come from a currently conforming RTP and TIP (40
CFR 93.114 and 93.115).
III. Proposed Action
EPA's review of MDE's December 18, 2019 submittal and March 12,
2020 technical correction indicates they meet CAA section 175A and all
applicable CAA requirements. EPA is proposing to approve the LMP for
Kent and Queen Anne's Counties as a revision to the Maryland SIP. EPA
is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered before taking final action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, 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 SIP approvals are exempted 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 (Public Law 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining Maryland's limited
maintenance plan for Kent and Queen Anne's Counties, does not have
tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: April 27, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2020-09373 Filed 5-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
