[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 162 (Thursday, August 21, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49474-49487]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19869]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0281; FRL- 9915-49-Region-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for the
Maryland Portion of the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD Nonattainment
Area for the 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 22,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2014-0281 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0281, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2014-0281. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, Air and
Radiation Management Administration, 1800 Washington Boulevard,
Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Background

    The first air quality standards for PM2.5 were
established on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652). EPA promulgated an annual
standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\),
based on a three-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations (the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard). In the same
rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ based
on a three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations.
    On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944, 1014), EPA published air quality
area designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In that
rulemaking action, EPA designated the Martinsburg Area as nonattainment
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The Martinsburg Area is
comprised of Washington County in Maryland and Berkeley County in West
Virginia. See 40 CFR 81.321 (Maryland) and 40 CFR 81.349 (West
Virginia).
    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the annual average
standard at 15 [mu]g/m\3\, but revised the 24-hour standard to 35
[mu]g/m\3\, based again on the three-year average of the 98th
percentile of the 24-hour concentrations (the 2006 annual
PM2.5 standard). On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA
published designations for the 2006 24-

hour PM2.5 standard, which became effective on December 14,
2009. In that rulemaking action, EPA designated the Martinsburg Area as
attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 58737
and 40 CFR 81.321 (Maryland) and also see 74 FR 58775 and 40 CFR 81.349
(West Virginia). Since the Martinsburg Area is designated nonattainment
for the annual NAAQS promulgated in 1997, today's proposed rulemaking
action addresses the redesignation to attainment only for this
standard.
    On November 20, 2009 (74 FR 60199), EPA determined that the
Martinsburg Area had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c) and based on this determination, the
requirements for States that comprise the Martinsburg Area to submit
attainment demonstrations and associated reasonably available control
measures (RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP) plans, contingency
measures, and other planning SIP revisions related to the attainment of
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS are suspended until such time
as: (1) the Area is redesignated to attainment for the standard, at
which time the requirements no longer apply or (2) EPA determines that
the Area has again violated the standard, at which time such plans are
required to be submitted. On January 20, 2012 (77 FR 1411), EPA
determined that the Martinsburg Area had attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS by the statutory attainment date of April 5,
2010.
    On December 12, 2013, the State of Maryland, through the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE), formally submitted a request to
redesignate the Maryland portion of the Martinsburg Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Concurrently, MDE submitted a maintenance plan for Washington County as
a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment throughout the Maryland
portion of the Area over the next 10 years. In addition, the
maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and
NOX MVEBs used for transportation conformity purposes for
Washington County, Maryland for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. EPA's Requirements

A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA
allows for redesignation providing that: (1) EPA determines that the
area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) EPA has fully approved the
applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k) of the
CAA; (3) EPA determines that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable
reductions; (4) EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area
as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and, (5) the
state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the
area under section 110 and part D of the CAA. Each of these
requirements are discussed in section V. (EPA's Analysis of Maryland's
SIP Submittal) of this proposed rulemaking action.
    EPA has provided guidance on redesignation in the ``State
Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title
I of the CAA Amendments of 1990,'' (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) (the
``General Preamble'') and has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents: (1) ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the ``1992 Calcagni
Memorandum''); (2) ``SIP Actions Submitted in Response to CAA
Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, October 28, 1992; and, (3) ``Part D New Source
Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994.

B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan

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

III. Summary of Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to take several rulemaking actions related to the
redesignation of the Maryland portion of the Area to attainment for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to find that the
Maryland portion of the Area meets the requirements for redesignation
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E)
of the CAA. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the
Maryland portion of the Area as a revision to the Maryland SIP for the
1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. The approval of a maintenance plan is one of the CAA criteria
for redesignation of the Area to attainment. The Washington County
maintenance plan is designed to ensure continued attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard in the Maryland portion of the Area
for 10 years after redesignation. EPA is also proposing to approve the
MVEBs for PM2.5 and NOX emissions for the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard, which are included as part of the
Washington County maintenance plan.
    EPA previously determined that the Martinsburg Area has attained
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 74 FR 60199 (November 20, 2009)
and 77 FR 1411 (January 10, 2012) and, in the rulemaking action
proposing approval of the redesignation request for the West Virginia
portion of the Area, EPA proposed to find that the Area continues to
attain the standard, 79 FR 25540 (May 5, 2014). EPA is, therefore,
proposing to approve MDE's request to change the designation for the
Maryland portion of the Martinsburg Area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This action does
not impact the designation of the West Virginia portion of the Area,
for which EPA is taking separate action. See 79 FR 25540, May 5, 2014
for information related to the redesignation of the West Virginia
portion of the Area, Docket I.D. EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0690.

IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on Proposed Actions

    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA considers the effects of
three legal decisions on this redesignation. EPA first considers the
effects of the D.C. Circuit Court and U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012),
rev'd, No. 12-1182 (S. Ct. April 29, 2014). The Supreme Court reversed
the D.C. Circuit Court decision vacating and remanding CSAPR. EPA is
also considering the effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit
decision remanding to EPA the ``Final Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final rule (73 FR
28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, ``1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule''). Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v.
EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

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

    EPA has considered the recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court
and the D.C. Circuit Court regarding EPA's CSAPR, and has concluded
that the decisions do not affect the Agency's proposal to redesignate
the Maryland portion of the Martinsburg Area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA promulgated
CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011) to replace the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR), which has been in place since 2005. See 76 FR 59517. Both
CSAPR and CAIR require significant reductions in emissions of
SO2 and NOX from electric generating units (EGUs)
to limit the interstate transport of these pollutants and the ozone and
fine particulate matter they form in the atmosphere. The D.C. Circuit
Court initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to
preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v.
EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). After staying the
implementation of CSAPR on December 20, 2011 and instructing EPA to
continue to implement CAIR in the interim, on August 21, 2012, the D.C.
Circuit Court issued a decision to vacate CSAPR, with further
instruction to continue administering CAIR ``pending the promulgation
of a valid replacement.'' EME Homer City Generation L.P. v. EPA, 696
F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court
reversed the opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court and remanded the matter
to the D.C. Circuit Court for further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer
City Generation, L.P., No. 12-1182 (S. Ct. April 29, 2014).
    In its submission, Maryland does not rely on either CAIR or CSAPR
for emission reductions that contributed to the Martinsburg Area's
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, nor does the
State rely on either of the rules to show maintenance of the standard
in the Maryland portion of the Area for 10 years following
redesignation. However, because CAIR was promulgated in 2005 and
incentivized sources and states to begin achieving early emission
reductions, the air quality data examined by EPA in issuing a final
determination of attainment for the Martinsburg Area in 2009 (November
20, 2009, 74 FR 60119) and the air quality data from the Area since
2005 necessarily reflect reductions in emissions from upwind sources as
a result of CAIR. Nonetheless, in this case EPA believes that it is
appropriate to redesignate the Maryland portion of the Area. Modeling
conducted by EPA during the CSAPR rulemaking process, which used a
baseline emissions scenario that ``backed out'' the effects of CAIR,
see 76 FR at 48223, projected that the counties in the Martinsburg Area
would have PM2.5 annual design values \1\ below the level of
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard for 2012 and 2014 without
taking into account emission reductions from CAIR or CSAPR. See
Appendix B of EPA's ``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document,'' (Page B-46), which is available in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking action. In addition, the 2010-2012 quality-assured,
quality-controlled, and certified monitoring data for the Martinsburg
Area confirms that 2012 PM2.5 annual design values for each
monitoring site in the Area remained well below the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, and, thus, the entire Area continued to attain
the standard in 2012. See Table 1 of this proposed rulemaking action
for the Martinsburg Area's monitoring data for 2010-2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Background
    On January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,
the D.C. Circuit Court remanded to EPA the ``Final Clean Air Fine
Particle Implementation Rule'' (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final rule (73 FR
28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, ``1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule''). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The D.C. Circuit
Court found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS pursuant to the

general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of
the CAA (subpart 1), rather than the particulate-matter-specific
provisions of subpart 4 of Part D of Title I (subpart 4).
    Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision, the states had worked
towards meeting the air quality goals of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with EPA regulations and guidance
derived from subpart 1. Subsequent to this decision, in rulemaking that
responds to the D.C. Circuit Court's remand, EPA took this history into
account by setting a new deadline for any remaining submissions that
may be required for moderate nonattainment areas as a result of the
Court's decision regarding subpart 4.
    On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), EPA finalized the ``Identification
of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of SIP
Provisions for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS'' rule (the PM2.5 Subpart 4
Classification and Deadline Rule). The rule identifies the
classification under subpart 4 for areas currently designated
nonattainment for the 1997 annual and/or 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standards and sets a new deadline for states to submit attainment-
related and other SIP elements required for these areas pursuant to
subpart 4. The rule also identifies EPA guidance that is currently
available regarding subpart 4 requirements. The PM2.5
Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule specifies December 31, 2014
as the deadline for the states to submit any additional attainment-
related SIP elements that may be needed to meet the applicable
requirements of subpart 4 for areas currently designated nonattainment
for the 1997 annual and/or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and to
submit SIPs addressing the nonattainment NSR requirements in subpart 4.
Therefore, as explained in detail in the following section, any
additional attainment-related SIP elements that may be needed for the
Maryland portion of the Area to meet the applicable requirements of
subpart 4 were not due at the time that MDE submitted its redesignation
request for the Maryland portion of the Area. Maryland submitted its
request for redesignating the Maryland portion of the Area for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS on December 12, 2013.
2. Proposal on This Issue
    EPA has considered the effect of the D.C. Circuit Court's January
4, 2013 ruling and the PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment
Classification and Deadline Rule on Maryland's request for
redesignation of the Maryland portion of the Area. In this proposed
rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to determine that the D.C. Circuit
Court's January 4, 2013 decision does not prevent EPA from
redesignating the Maryland portion of the Area to attainment. Even in
light of the D.C. Circuit Court's decision, redesignation for the Area
is appropriate under the CAA and EPA's longstanding interpretations of
the CAA provisions regarding redesignation. EPA first explains its
longstanding interpretation that requirements that are imposed, or that
become due, after a complete redesignation request is submitted for an
area that is attaining the standard, are not applicable for purposes of
evaluating a redesignation request. Second, EPA then shows that, even
if EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements to the redesignation request
for the Maryland portion of the Area and disregards the provisions of
its 1997 annual PM2.5 implementation rule recently remanded
by the D.C. Circuit Court, the State's request for redesignation of the
Area still qualify for approval. EPA's discussion takes into account
the effect of the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling and the proposed
PM2.5 Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline Rule on the
Area's maintenance plan, which EPA views as approvable when subpart 4
requirements are considered.
a. Applicable Requirements Under Subpart 4 for Purposes of Evaluating
the Redesignation Request for the Maryland Portion of the Martinsburg
Area
    With respect to the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 ruling rejected EPA's reasons for
implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with the
provisions of subpart 1, and remanded that matter to EPA, so that it
could address implementation of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
under subpart 4, in addition to subpart 1. For the purposes of
evaluating the redesignation request for the Maryland portion of the
Area, to the extent that implementation under subpart 4 would impose
additional requirements for areas designated nonattainment, EPA
believes that those requirements are not ``applicable'' for the
purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not required to
consider subpart 4 requirements with respect to the redesignation of
the Maryland portion of the Area. Under its longstanding interpretation
of the CAA, EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a
threshold matter, that the part D provisions which are ``applicable''
and which must be approved in order for EPA to redesignate an area
include only those which came due prior to a state's submittal of a
complete redesignation request. See 1992 Calcagni Memorandum. See also
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or
after November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator, Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro
memorandum); Final Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459,
12465-66, March 7, 1995); Final Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri,
(68 FR 25418, 25424-27, May 12, 2003); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d
537, 541 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA's redesignation rulemaking
applying this interpretation and expressly rejecting Sierra Club's view
that the meaning of ``applicable'' under the statute is ``whatever
should have been in the plan at the time of attainment rather than
whatever actually was in the plan and already implemented or due at the
time of attainment'').\2\ In this case, at the time that States
submitted their redesignation requests, the requirements under subpart
4 were not due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent
to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain
applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required
as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's view that, for purposes of evaluating the redesignation of
the Maryland portion of the Area, the subpart 4 requirements were not
due at the time Maryland submitted the redesignation request is in
keeping with the EPA's interpretation of subpart 2 requirements for
subpart 1 ozone areas redesignated subsequent to the D.C. Circuit
Court's decision in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472
F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In South Coast, the D.C. Circuit Court found
that EPA was not permitted to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
solely under subpart 1, and held that EPA was required under the
statute to implement the standard under the ozone-specific requirements
of subpart 2 as well. Subsequent to the South Coast decision, in
evaluating and acting upon redesignation requests for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard that were submitted to EPA for areas under subpart 1,
EPA applied its longstanding interpretation of the CAA that
``applicable requirements,'' for purposes of evaluating a
redesignation, are those that had been due at the time the
redesignation request was submitted. See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation
of Manitowoc County and Door County

Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 22050, April 27, 2010). In those
actions, EPA, therefore, did not consider subpart 2 requirements to be
``applicable'' for the purposes of evaluating whether the area should
be redesignated under section 107(d)(3)(E).
    EPA's interpretation derives from the provisions of section
107(d)(3). Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an area to be
redesignated, a state must meet ``all requirements `applicable' to the
area under section 110 and part D.'' Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides
that the EPA must have fully approved the ``applicable'' SIP for the
area seeking redesignation. These two sections read together support
EPA's interpretation of ``applicable'' as only those requirements that
came due prior to submission of a complete redesignation request.
First, holding states to an ongoing obligation to adopt new CAA
requirements that arose after the state submitted its redesignation
request, in order to be redesignated, would make it problematic or
impossible for EPA to act on redesignation requests in accordance with
the 18-month deadline Congress set for EPA action in section
107(d)(3)(D). If ``applicable requirements'' were interpreted to be a
continuing flow of requirements with no reasonable limitation, states,
after submitting a redesignation request, would be forced continuously
to make additional SIP submissions that in turn would require EPA to
undertake further notice-and-comment rulemaking actions to act on those
submissions. This would create a regime of unceasing rulemaking that
would delay action on the redesignation request beyond the 18-month
timeframe provided by the CAA for this purpose.
    Second, a fundamental premise for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment is that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS due
to emission reductions from existing controls. Thus, an area for which
a redesignation request has been submitted would have already attained
the NAAQS as a result of satisfying statutory requirements that came
due prior to the submission of the request. Absent a showing that
unadopted and unimplemented requirements are necessary for future
maintenance, it is reasonable to view the requirements applicable for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation request as including only
those SIP requirements that have already come due. These are the
requirements that led to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, for
redesignation approval, that a state also satisfy additional SIP
requirements coming due after the state submits its complete
redesignation request, and while EPA is reviewing it, would compel the
state to do more than is necessary to attain the NAAQS, without a
showing that the additional requirements are necessary for maintenance.
    In the context of this redesignation, the timing and nature of the
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA and EPA's
November 21, 2013 proposed PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment
Classification and Deadline Rule compound the consequences of imposing
requirements that come due after the redesignation request is
submitted. Maryland submitted its redesignation request for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS on December 12, 2013, which is prior to
the deadline by which the Maryland portion of the Area is required to
meet the applicable requirements pursuant to subpart 4.
    To require Maryland's fully-completed and pending redesignation
request for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS to comply now with
requirements of subpart 4 that the D.C. Circuit Court announced only in
January 2013 and for which the deadline to comply has not yet come,
would be to give retroactive effect to such requirements and provide
the State a unique and earlier deadline for compliance solely on the
basis of submitting its redesignation request for the Maryland portion
of the Area. The D.C. Circuit Court recognized the inequity of this
type of retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C.
Cir. 2002),\3\ where it upheld the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling refusing
to make retroactive EPA's determination that the St. Louis area did not
meet its attainment deadline. In that case, petitioners urged the D.C.
Circuit Court to make EPA's nonattainment determination effective as of
the date that the statute required, rather than the later date on which
EPA actually made the determination. The D.C. Circuit Court rejected
this view, stating that applying it ``would likely impose large costs
on States, which would face fines and suits for not implementing air
pollution prevention plans . . . even though they were not on notice at
the time.'' Id. at 68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable to penalize
the States by rejecting their redesignation request for an area that is
already attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard and that
met all applicable requirements known to be in effect at the time of
the requests. For EPA now to reject the redesignation requests solely
because the States did not expressly address subpart 4 requirements
which have not yet come due, would inflict the same unfairness
condemned by the D.C. Circuit Court in Sierra Club v. Whitman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

b. Subpart 4 Requirements and Maryland Redesignation Request
    Even if EPA were to take the view that the D.C. Circuit Court's
January 4, 2013 decision requires that, in the context of pending
redesignations for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, subpart 4
requirements were due and in effect at the time Maryland submitted its
redesignation request, EPA proposes to determine that the Maryland
portion of the Area still qualifies for redesignation to attainment for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. As explained subsequently,
EPA believes that the redesignation request for the Maryland portion of
the Area, though not expressed in terms of subpart 4 requirements,
substantively meets the requirements of that subpart for purposes of
redesignating the Maryland portion of the Area to attainment.
    With respect to evaluating the relevant substantive requirements of
subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating the Maryland portion of the
Area, EPA notes that subpart 4 incorporates components of subpart 1,
which contains general air quality planning requirements for areas
designated as nonattainment. See section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself
contains specific planning and scheduling requirements for coarse
particulate matter (PM10) \4\ nonattainment areas, and under
the D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA, these
same statutory requirements also apply for PM2.5
nonattainment areas. EPA has longstanding general guidance that
interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA, making recommendations to
states for meeting the statutory requirements for SIPs for
nonattainment areas. See the General Preamble. In the General Preamble,
EPA discussed the relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP
requirements, and pointed out that subpart 1 requirements were to an
extent ``subsumed by, or integrally related to, the more specific
PM10 requirements'' (57 FR 13538, April 16, 1992). The
subpart 1 requirements include, among other things, provisions

for attainment demonstrations, RACM, RFP, emissions inventories, and
contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the purposes of this redesignation request, in order to
identify any additional requirements which would apply under subpart 4,
consistent with EPA's June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4
Nonattainment Classification and Deadline Rule, EPA is considering the
Maryland portion of the Area to be a ``moderate'' PM2.5
nonattainment area. As EPA explained in its June 2, 2014 rule, section
188 of the CAA provides that all areas designated nonattainment areas
under subpart 4 are initially classified by operation of law as
``moderate'' nonattainment areas, and will remain moderate
nonattainment areas unless and until EPA reclassifies the area as a
``serious'' nonattainment area. Accordingly, EPA believes that it is
appropriate to limit the evaluation of the potential impact of subpart
4 requirements to those that would be applicable to moderate
nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 4 apply to
moderate nonattainment areas and include the following: (1) An approved
permit program for construction of new and modified major stationary
sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); (2) an attainment demonstration
(section 189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C));
and (4) quantitative milestones demonstrating RFP toward attainment by
the applicable attainment date (section 189(c)).
    The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section
189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit provisions
requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM10, without adding
to them. Consequently, EPA believes that section 189(a)(1)(A) does not
itself impose for redesignation purposes any additional requirements
for moderate areas beyond those contained in subpart 1.\5\ In any
event, in the context of redesignation, EPA has long relied on the
interpretation that a fully approved nonattainment NSR program is not
considered an applicable requirement for redesignation, provided the
area can maintain the standard with a prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) program after redesignation. A detailed rationale
for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled,
``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.'' See also rulemakings for Detroit,
Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain,
Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66
FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-
31837, June 21, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The General Preamble also explained that: ``The section 172(c)(9)
requirements are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the
applicable date. These requirements no longer apply when an area has
attained the standard and is eligible for redesignation. Furthermore,
section 175A for maintenance plans . . . provides specific requirements
for contingency measures that effectively supersede the requirements of
section 172(c)(9) for these areas.'' Id. EPA similarly stated in its
1992 Calcagni Memorandum that: ``The requirements for reasonable
further progress and other measures needed for attainment will not
apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not
attaining the standard.''
    It is evident that even if we were to consider the D.C. Circuit
Court's January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that
attainment-related requirements specific to subpart 4 should be imposed
retroactively \7\ or prior to December 31, 2014 and, thus, were due
prior to the State's redesignation request, those requirements do not
apply to an area that is attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, for the purpose of evaluating a pending request to redesignate
the area to attainment. EPA has consistently enunciated this
interpretation of applicable requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E)
since the General Preamble was published more than twenty years ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As EPA has explained previously, we do not believe that the
D.C. Circuit Court's January 4, 2013 decision should be interpreted
so as to impose these requirements on the states retroactively.
Sierra Club v. Whitman, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Courts have recognized the scope of EPA's authority to interpret
``applicable requirements'' in the redesignation context. See Sierra
Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).
    Moreover, even outside the context of redesignations, EPA has
viewed the obligations to submit attainment-related SIP planning
requirements of subpart 4 as inapplicable for areas that EPA determines
are attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. EPA's prior
``Clean Data Policy'' rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also
governed by the requirements of subpart 4, explain EPA's reasoning.
They describe the effects of a determination of attainment on the
attainment-related SIP planning requirements of subpart 4. See
``Determination of Attainment for Coso Junction Nonattainment Area,''
(75 FR 27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso Junction Proposed
PM10 Redesignation, (75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010);
Proposed and Final Determinations of Attainment for San Joaquin
Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 40954-55, July 19, 2006 and 71 FR
63641, 63643-47, October 30, 2006). In short, EPA in this context has
also long concluded that to require states to meet superfluous SIP
planning requirements is not necessary and not required by the CAA, so
long as those areas continue to attain the relevant NAAQS.
    EPA has proposed to determine that the Martinsburg Area has
attained and continues to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. See 79 FR 25540, May 5, 2014. Under its longstanding
interpretation, EPA is proposing to determine here that the Maryland
portion of the Area meets the attainment-related plan requirements of
subparts 1 and 4 for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, EPA
is proposing to conclude that the requirements to submit an attainment
demonstration under 189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination under section
172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration under
189(c)(1), and contingency measure requirements under section 172(c)(9)
are satisfied for purposes of evaluating this redesignation request.
c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5 Precursors
    The D.C. Circuit Court in NRDC v. EPA remanded to EPA the two rules
at issue in the case with instructions to

EPA to re-promulgate them consistent with the requirements of subpart
4. EPA in this section addresses the D.C. Circuit Court's opinion with
respect to PM2.5 precursors. While past implementation of
subpart 4 for PM10 has allowed for control of
PM10 precursors such as NOX from major
stationary, mobile, and area sources in order to attain the standard as
expeditiously as practicable, section 189(e) of the CAA specifically
provides that control requirements for major stationary sources of
direct PM10 shall also apply to PM10 precursors
from those sources, except where EPA determines that major stationary
sources of such precursors ``do not contribute significantly to
PM10 levels which exceed the standard in the area.''
    EPA's 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, remanded by the
D.C. Circuit Court, contained rebuttable presumptions concerning
certain PM2.5 precursors applicable to attainment plans and
control measures related to those plans. Specifically, in 40 CFR
51.1002, EPA provided, among other things, that a state was ``not
required to address VOC [and ammonia] as . . . PM2.5
attainment plan precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of VOC [and
ammonia] emissions in the State for control measures.'' EPA intended
these to be rebuttable presumptions. EPA established these presumptions
at the time because of uncertainties regarding the emission inventories
for these pollutants and the effectiveness of specific control measures
in various regions of the country in reducing PM2.5
concentrations. EPA also left open the possibility for such regulation
of VOC and ammonia in specific areas where that was necessary.
    The D.C. Circuit Court in its January 4, 2013 decision made
reference to both section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51. 1002, and stated that:
``In light of our disposition, we need not address the petitioners'
challenge to the presumptions in [40 CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic
compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5 precursors, as subpart 4
expressly governs precursor presumptions.'' NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10.
Elsewhere in the D.C. Circuit Court's opinion, however, the D.C.
Circuit Court observed: ``Ammonia is a precursor to fine particulate
matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5 and
PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area governed by
subpart 4, a precursor is presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. Sec.
7513a(e) [section 189(e)].'' Id. at 21, n.7.
    For a number of reasons, EPA believes that its proposed
redesignation of the Maryland portion of the Area for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS is consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court's
decision on this aspect of subpart 4. While the D.C. Circuit Court,
citing section 189(e), stated that ``for a PM10 area
governed by subpart 4, a precursor is `presumptively regulated,' '' the
D.C. Circuit Court expressly declined to decide the specific challenge
to EPA's 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule provisions regarding
ammonia and VOC as precursors. The D.C. Circuit Court had no occasion
to reach whether and how it was substantively necessary to regulate any
specific precursor in a particular PM2.5 nonattainment area,
and did not address what might be necessary for purposes of acting upon
a redesignation request.
    However, even if EPA takes the view that the requirements of
subpart 4 were deemed applicable at the time the State submitted the
redesignation request, and disregards the 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule's rebuttable presumptions regarding ammonia and VOC
as PM2.5 precursors, the regulatory consequence would be to
consider the need for regulation of all precursors from any sources in
the area to demonstrate attainment and to apply the section 189(e)
provisions to major stationary sources of precursors. In the case of
the Maryland portion of the Area, EPA believes that doing so is
consistent with proposing redesignation of the Area for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard. The Martinsburg Area has attained the 1997
annual PM2.5 standard without any specific additional
controls of VOC and ammonia emissions from any sources in the Area.
    Precursors in subpart 4 are specifically regulated under the
provisions of section 189(e), which requires, with important
exceptions, control requirements for major stationary sources of
PM10 precursors.\8\ Under subpart 1 and EPA's prior
implementation rule, all major stationary sources of PM2.5
precursors were subject to regulation, with the exception of ammonia
and VOC. Thus, EPA must address here whether additional controls of
ammonia and VOC from major stationary sources are required under
section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to redesignate the Maryland
portion of the Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. As
explained subsequently, EPA does not believe that any additional
controls of ammonia and VOC are required in the context of this
redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for purposes of
demonstrating attainment as expeditiously as practicable, a state is
required to evaluate all economically and technologically feasible
control measures for direct PM emissions and precursor emissions,
and adopt those measures that are deemed reasonably available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the General Preamble, EPA discusses its approach to implementing
section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538-13542. With regard to precursor
regulation under section 189(e), the General Preamble explicitly stated
that control of VOC under other CAA requirements may suffice to relieve
a state from the need to adopt precursor controls under section 189(e).
See 57 FR 13542. EPA in this rulemaking action proposes to determine
that Maryland's SIP has met the provisions of section 189(e) with
respect to ammonia and VOC as precursors. This proposed determination
is based on our findings that: (1) The Maryland portion of the Area
contains no major stationary sources of ammonia; and (2) existing major
stationary sources of VOC are adequately controlled under other
provisions of the CAA regulating the ozone NAAQS.\9\ In the
alternative, EPA proposes to determine that, under the express
exception provisions of section 189(e), and in the context of the
redesignation of the Maryland portion of the Area, which is attaining
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, at present ammonia and VOC
precursors from major stationary sources do not contribute
significantly to levels exceeding the 1997 annual PM2.5
standard in the Area. See 57 FR 13539-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule
provisions in 40 CFR 51.1002 were not directed at evaluation of
PM2.5 precursors in the context of redesignation, but at SIP
plans and control measures required to bring a nonattainment area into
attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. By contrast,
redesignation to attainment primarily requires the nonattainment area
to have already attained due to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions, and to demonstrate that controls in place can continue to
maintain the standard. Thus, even if we regard the D.C. Circuit Court's
January 4, 2013 decision as calling for ``presumptive regulation'' of
ammonia and VOC for PM2.5 under the attainment planning
provisions of subpart 4, those provisions in and of themselves do not
require additional controls of these precursors for an area that
already qualifies for redesignation. Nor does EPA believe that
requiring the State to address precursors differently

than it has already, would result in a substantively different outcome.
    Although, as EPA has emphasized, its consideration here of
precursor requirements under subpart 4 is in the context of a
redesignation to attainment, EPA's existing interpretation of subpart 4
requirements with respect to precursors in attainment plans for
PM10 contemplates that states may develop attainment plans
that regulate only those precursors that are necessary for purposes of
attainment in the area in question, i.e., states may determine that
only certain precursors need be regulated for attainment and control
purposes.\10\ Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of
subpart 4 for PM10.\11\ EPA believes that application of
this approach to PM2.5 precursors under subpart 4 is
reasonable. Because the Martinsburg Area has already attained the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS with its current approach to regulation
of PM2.5 precursors, EPA believes that it is reasonable to
conclude in the context of this redesignation that there is no need to
revisit the attainment control strategy with respect to the treatment
of precursors. Even if the D.C. Circuit Court's decision is construed
to impose an obligation, in evaluating this redesignation request, to
consider additional precursors under subpart 4, it would not affect
EPA's approval here of the State's request for redesignation of the
Maryland portion of the Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. In the context of a redesignation, the State has shown that the
Martinsburg Area has attained the standard. Moreover, the State has
shown and EPA is proposing to determine that attainment of the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Maryland portion of the Area is
due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions on all precursors
necessary to provide for continued attainment of the standard (see
section V.A.3 of this rulemaking notice). It follows logically that no
further control of additional precursors is necessary. Accordingly, EPA
does not view the January 4, 2013 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court as
precluding redesignation of the Maryland portion of the Area to
attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. In
summary, even if, prior to the date of the redesignation request
submittal, the State was required to address precursors for the
Maryland portion of the Area under subpart 4 rather than under subpart
1, as interpreted in EPA's remanded 1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rule, EPA would still conclude that the Maryland portion
of the Area had met all applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

A. Redesignation Request

1. Attainment
    EPA has previously determined that the Martinsburg Area has
attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. As noted previously,
on November 20, 2009 (74 FR 60199), EPA determined that the Martinsburg
Area had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, based on
2007-2009 and 2008-2010 quality-assured, quality-controlled, and
certified ambient air quality monitoring data. Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.2004(c), this ``clean data'' determination for the Area suspended
the requirements for the State to submit an attainment demonstration
and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and other
planning SIPs related to the attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS until the Area is redesignated to attainment for
the standard or EPA determines that the Area has again violated the
standard, at which time such plans are required to be submitted. On
January 10, 2012 (77 FR 1411), EPA determined that the entire
Martinsburg Area had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by
its statutory attainment date of April 5, 2010, based upon complete,
quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for
the period of 2007-2009.
    Maryland's redesignation request submittal included the historic
monitoring data for the annual PM2.5 monitoring sites in the
Martinsburg Area. The historic monitoring data shows that the
Martinsburg Area has attained and continues to attain the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. MDE assures that all PM2.5
monitoring data for the Maryland portion of the Area has been quality-
assured, quality-controlled, and certified by the State in accordance
with 40 CFR 58.10. Furthermore, EPA has thoroughly reviewed the most
recent ambient air quality monitoring data for PM2.5 in the
Area, as submitted by the State and recorded in EPA's Air Quality
System (AQS). The PM2.5 quality-assured, quality-controlled,
and state-certified 2009-2012 air quality data shows that the
Martinsburg Area continues to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. The Area's PM2.5 annual design values for the 2009-
2011, and 2010-2012 monitoring periods as well as preliminary data for
2013 are provided in Table 1.

Table 1--Design Values in the Martinsburg Area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for 2008-2010, 2009-2011 and 2010-
                                             2012 Monitoring Periods
                                                 [In [mu]g/m\3\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Annual design values
          Monitor ID            Monitor location ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2008-2010       2009-2011       2010-2012       2011-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
54-003-0003..................  Martinsburg, WV..            12.9            11.8            11.6            10.7
24-043-0009..................  Hagerstown, MD...            11.0            10.9            11.3            10.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Martinsburg Area's recent monitoring data supports EPA's
previous determinations that the Area has attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, as discussed subsequently with
respect to the maintenance plan for the Maryland portion of the Area,
the State has committed to continue monitoring ambient PM2.5
concentrations in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of
the CAA
    In accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA, the SIP
revisions for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the Maryland
portion of the Area must be fully approved under section 110(k) of the
CAA and all the requirements applicable to the Maryland portion of the
Area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements) and part D
of Title I of the CAA (SIP requirements for nonattainment areas) must
be met.
a. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA delineates the general
requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations
and other control measures, means, or techniques, provisions for the
establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect
data on ambient air quality, and programs to enforce the limitations.
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) of the CAA include, but are not limited to the following: (1)
Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable
public notice and hearing; (2) provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air
quality; (3) implementation of a source permit program; provisions for
the implementation of Part C requirements (PSD); (4) provisions for the
implementation of Part D requirements for NSR permit programs; (5)
provisions for air pollution modeling; and (6) provisions for public
and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule
development.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain certain
measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing
to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision,
EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the
interstate transport of air pollutants in accordance with the
NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998), amendments to
the NOX SIP Call (64 FR 26298, May 14, 1999 and 65 FR 11222,
March 2, 2000), and CAIR (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005). However, section
110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requirements for a state are not linked with a
particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that
state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant
measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular
area in the state. Thus, EPA does not believe that these requirements
are applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
    In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110(a)(2) elements
of the CAA which are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions
and not linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. The Maryland portion of the
Martinsburg Area will still be subject to these requirements after it
is redesignated. EPA concludes that section 110(a)(2) of the CAA and
part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's
designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request, and that section 110(a)(2) elements
of the CAA not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not
applicable for purposes of redesignation. This approach is consistent
with EPA's existing policy on applicability of conformity (i.e., for
redesignations) and oxygenated fuels requirement. See Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 10,
1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final
rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida final
rulemaking (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on
this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19,
2000) and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania redesignation (66 FR 53099,
October 19, 2001).
    EPA has reviewed the Maryland SIP and has concluded that it meets
the general SIP requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA to the
extent they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA has
previously approved provisions of Maryland's SIP addressing section
110(a)(2) requirements, including provisions addressing
PM2.5. See 76 FR 72624, November 25, 2011. These
requirements are, however, statewide requirements that are not linked
to the PM2.5 nonattainment status of the Maryland portion of
the Area. Therefore, EPA believes that these SIP elements are not
applicable requirements for purposes of review of Maryland's
PM2.5 redesignation request.
b. Subpart 1 Requirements
    Subpart 1 sets forth the basic nonattainment plan requirements
applicable to PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Under section 172
of the CAA, states with nonattainment areas must submit plans providing
for timely attainment and meet a variety of other requirements. The
General Preamble for Implementation of Title I discusses the evaluation
of these requirements in the context of EPA's consideration of a
redesignation request. The General Preamble sets forth EPA's view of
applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation
requests when an area is attaining the standard. See 57 FR 13498, April
16, 1992.
    As noted previously, EPA has determined that the Martinsburg Area
has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.2004(c), the requirement for Maryland to submit, for the Maryland
portion of the Martinsburg Area, an attainment demonstration and
associated RACM, an RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning
SIPs related to the attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS are suspended until the Area is redesignated to attainment for
the standard, or EPA determines that the Area again violated the
standard, at which time such plans are required to be submitted. Since
attainment has been reached for the Area for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and continues to attain the standard, no
additional measures are needed to provide for attainment. Therefore,
the requirements of sections 172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), 172(c)(6), and
172(c)(9) of the CAA are no longer considered to be applicable for
purposes of redesignation of the Maryland portion of the Area for the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    The requirement under section 172(c)(3) was not suspended by EPA's
clean data determination for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
and is the only remaining requirement under section 172 of the CAA to
be considered for purposes of redesignation of the Maryland portion of
the Area. Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires submission and approval
of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions.

    On December 7, 2012 (77 FR 72966), EPA approved a 2002 emissions
inventory for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the Maryland
portion of the Area. The emissions inventory was submitted with
Maryland's attainment plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
on June 6, 2008, to meet the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the
CAA. The 2002 comprehensive emissions inventories for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard submitted by the State with its attainment
plan for the Maryland portion of the Area included emissions estimates
that cover the general source categories of point sources, area
sources, onroad mobile sources, and nonroad mobile sources for the
Maryland portion of the Area. The pollutants that comprise the State's
2002 emissions inventories for the Maryland portion of the Area are
PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC, and ammonia. An
evaluation of the comprehensive emissions inventories for the Maryland
portion of the Area is provided in the TSD prepared by EPA for the
separate rulemaking action. See Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0154.
    Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires the identification and
quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified
stationary sources in an area, and section 172(c)(5) of the CAA
requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and
modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area.
EPA has determined that, since the PSD requirements will apply after
redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the
requirement that a nonattainment NSR program be approved prior to
redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the
NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is
described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994 entitled, ``Part D New
Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.'' Maryland's PSD program for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS will become effective in the Maryland portion of
the Martinsburg Area upon redesignation to attainment. See (77 FR
45949, August 2, 2012) (approving revisions to Maryland's PSD program).
    Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires the SIP to meet the
applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. As noted
previously, EPA believes the Maryland SIP meets the requirements of
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA that are applicable for purposes of
redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires a state seeking
redesignation to attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the
maintenance of the NAAQS in the area ``for at least 10 years after the
redesignation.'' In conjunction with its request to redesignate the
Maryland portion of the Martinsburg Area to attainment status, Maryland
submitted the Washington County maintenance plan as a SIP revision to
provide for maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in
the Maryland portion of the Area for at least 10 years after
redesignation, through 2025. Maryland is requesting that EPA approve
this SIP revision as meeting the requirement of section 175A of the
CAA. Once approved, the Washington County maintenance plan will ensure
that the SIP for Maryland meets the requirements of the CAA regarding
maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the Maryland
portion of the Area. EPA's analysis of the maintenance plan is provided
in section V.B (Maintenance Plan) of this document.
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federally supported or funded projects
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,
programs, and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 of
the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act
(transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally supported
or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation
conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement and enforceability
which EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA. EPA
interprets the conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes
of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) of the CAA
because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation
and Federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been
approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding
this interpretation). See also (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995)
(discussing Tampa, Florida).
    Thus, for purposes of redesignating to attainment the Maryland
portion of the Martinsburg Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, EPA determines that the Maryland portion of the Area has met all
applicable SIP requirements under part D of Title I of the CAA.
c. The Maryland Portion of the Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP
Under Section 110(k) of the CAA
    EPA has fully approved all applicable requirements of the Maryland
SIP for the Maryland portion of the Area for purposes of redesignaton
to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance
with section 110(k) of the CAA.
3. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA requires EPA to determine that the air
quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and
applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other
permanent and enforceable reductions. Maryland's redesignation request
indicates that a variety of federal vehicle control programs have
created emission reductions that contributed to attainment in 2007. In
making this demonstration, Maryland has calculated the change in
emissions for the on-road sector between 2002, one of the years used to
designate the Area as nonattainment, and 2007, one of the years the
Area monitored attainment, as shown in Table 2.

 Table 2--Comparison of 2002 Nonattainment Year and 2007 Attainment Year Reductions for On Road Emissions in the
                                       Maryland Portion of the Area (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2002            2007          Decrease
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2.............................................................             286             218              68
NOX.............................................................           9,163           6,022           3,141
PM2.5...........................................................             263              45             218
VOC.............................................................           2,557           1,657             990
NH3.............................................................             111              92              19
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................          12,380           8,034           4,436
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reduction in emissions and the corresponding improvement in air
quality from 2002 to 2007 in the Maryland portion of the Martinsburg
Area can be attributed to a number of regulatory control measures that
have been implemented in the Maryland portion of the Area and
contributing areas in recent years. An evaluation of the State's 2002
comprehensive emissions inventory for the Maryland portion of the Area
is provided in the TSD prepared by EPA for the December 7, 2012
rulemaking action approving the base year inventory. See Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0154. An evaluation of the 2007 emissions inventory is
provided in EPA's emissions inventory TSD dated April 30, 2014, which
is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action.
    Reductions in PM2.5 precursor emissions have occurred
statewide and in upwind states as a result of Federal emission control
measures, with additional emission reductions expected to occur in the
future. The Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur
Standards (Tier 2 Standards) have resulted in lower NOX and
SO2 emissions from new cars and light duty trucks, including
sport utility vehicles. The Federal rules were phased in between 2004
and 2009. EPA has estimated that, after phasing in the new
requirements, new vehicles emit less NOX in the following
percentages: Passenger cars (light duty vehicles)--77 percent; light
duty trucks, minivans, and sports utility vehicles--86 percent; and
larger sports utility vehicles, vans, and heavier trucks--69-95
percent. EPA expects fleet wide average emissions to decline by similar
percentages as new vehicles replace older vehicles. The Tier 2
standards also reduced the sulfur content of gasoline to 30 parts per
million (ppm) beginning in January 2006, which reflects up to a 90
percent reduction in sulfur content.
    EPA issued the Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule in July 2000. This
rule includes standards limiting the sulfur content of diesel fuel,
which went into effect in 2004. A second phase took effect in 2007
which reduced PM2.5 emissions from heavy-duty highway
engines and further reduced the highway diesel fuel sulfur content to
15 ppm. The total program is estimated to achieve a 90 percent
reduction in direct PM2.5 emissions and a 95 percent
reduction in NOX emissions for these new engines using low
sulfur diesel, compared to existing engines using higher sulfur diesel
fuel. The reduction in fuel sulfur content also yielded an immediate
reduction in particulate sulfate emissions from all diesel vehicles.
    In May 2004, EPA promulgated the Nonroad Diesel Rule for large
nonroad diesel engines, such as those used in construction,
agriculture, and mining, to be phased in between 2008 and 2014. The
rule also reduces the sulfur content in nonroad diesel fuel by over 99
percent. Prior to 2006, nonroad diesel fuel averaged approximately
3,400 ppm sulfur. This rule limited nonroad diesel sulfur content to
500 ppm by 2006, with a further reduction to 15 ppm by 2010.

B. Maintenance Plan

    On December 12, 2013, MDE submitted a maintenance plan for
Washington County for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS as
required by section 175A of the CAA. EPA's analysis for proposing
approval of the maintenance plan is provided in this section.
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    Section 172(c)(3) requires states to submit a comprehensive,
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources in the
nonattainment area. For a maintenance plan, states are required to
submit an inventory to identify the level of emissions in the area
which is sufficient to attain the NAAQS, referred to as the attainment
inventory (or the maintenance plan base year inventory), and which
should be based on actual emissions. MDE submitted an attainment
inventory for 2007, one of the years in the period during which the
Martinsburg Area monitored attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard. The attainment inventory is comprised of
NOX, PM2.5, SO2, VOC, and
NH3 emissions from point sources, nonpoint sources, onroad
mobile sources, and nonroad mobile sources.
    For the 2007 emissions inventory for point, nonpoint, and nonroad
source categories, MDE submitted the 2007 Version 3 emissions inventory
developed through the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association
(MARAMA) regional planning process. Details related to the development
of the 2007 emissions inventory can be found in the January 23, 2012
MARAMA TSD entitled ``Technical Support Document for the Development of
the 2007 Emissions Inventory for the Regional Air Quality Modeling in
the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Region Version 3.3'' which may be found in
Appendix D of the State's submittal, which is available in the docket
for this proposed rulemaking action.
    The 2007 point source inventory includes emissions from EGUs and
non-EGU sources as developed by MARAMA in consultation with MDE. The
nonpoint source emissions inventory for 2007 was developed using 2007
specific activity data along with EPA emission factors and the most
recently available emission calculation methodologies. The 2007 nonroad
mobile source emissions was generated using EPA's National Mobile
Inventory Model (NMIM) 2008, which used the NONROAD 2008a emissions
model. Since marine, air and rail/locomotive (MAR) emissions are not
part of the NONROAD model, they were calculated separately outside of
the NONROAD model using the most recent methodologies and inputs.
    The 2007 onroad mobile source inventory was developed by using
EPA's highway mobile source emissions model MOVES2010a and the most
recent planning assumptions. Local data inputs to MOVES2010a reflect
the latest available planning assumptions using data obtained from MDE,
the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MMVA), the Maryland State
Highway

Administration (MSHA), the Hagerstown/Eastern Panhandle Metropolitan
Planning Organization (HEPMPO), and other local/national sources. The
2007 onroad emissions inventory, including a summary of the methodology
and data assumptions used for the analysis may be found in Appendix F
of the State's submittal, available in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking action.
    EPA has reviewed the documentation provided by MDE and found the
emissions inventory to be acceptable. For more information on the
emissions inventories submitted by MDE and EPA's analysis of the
inventories, see Appendices A-G of the State's submittal and EPA's
emissions inventory TSD dated April 30, 2014, all of which are
available on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-R03-
2014-0281.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
    Section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment
to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in
the area ``for at least 10 years after the redesignation.'' EPA has
interpreted this as a showing of maintenance ``for a period of ten
years following redesignation.'' Where the emissions inventory method
of showing maintenance is used, its purpose is to show that emissions
during the maintenance period will not increase over the attainment
year inventory. See 1992 Calcagni Memorandum, pages 9-10.
    For a demonstration of maintenance, emissions inventories are
required to be projected to future dates to assess the influence of
future growth and controls; however, the maintenance demonstration need
not be based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA,
supra. See also 66 FR 53099-53100; 68 FR 25430-32. To show that the
Maryland portion of the Area will remain in attainment, MDE uses
projection inventories derived by applying appropriate growth and
control factors to the 2007 attainment year emissions inventory. MDE
developed projection inventories for an interim year of 2017 and a
maintenance plan end year of 2025 to show that future emissions of
SO2, NOX, PM2.5, VOC, and
NH3, will remain at or below the 2007 emissions levels
throughout the Maryland portion of the Area through the year 2025.
    Projected emissions for EGU point sources were based on electricity
generation projections delineated by region and fuel. Growth factors
for EGU sources are based on the U.S. Energy Information
Administration's (EIA) 2011 annual Energy Outlook (AEO2011). Projected
emissions for non-EGU point sources were developed using AEO fuel
consumption forecasts, State-level employment projections, and other
State-specific emissions projection data.
    The projected onroad mobile source inventories were developed by
using MOVES2010a. Local data inputs to MOVES2010a included the most
recent planning assumptions using data from MDE, MMVA, MSHA, the
HEPMPO, and other local/national sources. The State developed growth
factors based on consultation between the Maryland Department of
Transportation, HEPMPO, and MDE.
    Projected emissions for nonroad sources were developed using
NMIM2008, which used the NONROAD2008a model, EPA's most recently
approved emissions estimation tool for nonroad sources. Airport ground
support equipment emissions were estimated based on EPA's aircraft
inventory that uses the Federal Aviation Administration Emissions and
Dispersion Modeling System. Because the NONROAD model does not estimate
marine vessel, airport, and railroad sources, these emissions were
estimated separately.
    A discussion of emission projections, projection methodology,
control factors and growth factors for the 2017 and 2025 inventories
can be found in MARAMA's ``Technical Support Document for the
Development of the 2017/2020 Emission Inventory for Regional Air
Quality Modeling in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Region, Version 3.3''
and in the MANE-VU TSD, which are both available in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking. EPA has reviewed the documentation provided by MDE
and found the methodologies acceptable.
    Based on the above discussion and available data, EPA has
determined that the emissions inventories as provided by MDE are
approvable. For more information on the State's emissions inventory
submittal and EPA's analysis, see Appendices B and C of the State
submittal and EPA's TSD dated April 30, 2014, which are available in
the docket for this proposed rulemaking action. Table 3 shows a summary
of the inventories for the 2007 attainment year, the 2017 interim year,
and the 2025 maintenance plan end year for the Maryland portion of the
Area.

  Table 3--Comparison of 2007 Attainment Year Inventory With 2017 and 2025 Projected Emissions in the Maryland
                                      Portion of the Martinsburg Area (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Change from     Change from
                                       2007            2017            2025          2007-2017       2007-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2.............................           7,183           5,962           5,967           1,221           1,216
NOX.............................          10,781           7,909           6,466           2,872           4,315
PM2.5...........................           1,432           1,191           1,155             241             280
VOC.............................           4,662           3,472           3,266           1,190           1,396
NH3.............................           1,206           1,184           1,192              25              14
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................          25,264          19,717          18,046           5,547           7,218
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 shows that between 2007 and 2017, the Maryland portion of
the Area is projected to reduce SO2 emissions by 17 percent,
NOX emissions by 26.6 percent, PM2.5 emissions by
16.8 percent, NH3 by 2.1 percent, and VOC by 25.5 percent.
Between 2007 and 2025, the Maryland portion of the Area is projected to
reduce SO2 emissions by 16.9 percent, NOX
emissions by 40.0 percent, PM2.5 emissions by 19.6 percent,
NH3 by 1.2 percent and VOC by 30 percent. The projected
emissions inventories show that the Maryland portion of the Area will
continue to maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS during the
10 year maintenance period.
3. Monitoring Network
    There are two PM2.5 monitors in the Martinsburg Area.
One is located in Maryland and is operated by the Maryland Department
of the Environment, and the other one is located in West Virginia and
is operated by the West Virginia Division of Air

Quality. The Washington County maintenance plan includes the State's
commitment to continue to operate and maintain its PM2.5 air
quality monitoring network, consistent with EPA's monitoring
requirements, as necessary to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In its December 12, 2013 submittal,
Maryland stated that it will consult with EPA prior to making any
necessary changes to the network and will continue to quality assure
the monitoring data in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part
58.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
    To provide for tracking of the emission levels in the Maryland
portion of the Area, MDE will periodically update the emissions
inventory, consisting of annual and periodic evaluations. Annual
emissions updates of stationary sources, the Highway Performance
Monitoring System vehicle miles travelled data reported to the Federal
Highway Administration, and other growth indicators, which will be
compared to the growth assumptions to determine if the projected growth
and observed growth are consistent. MDE will also submit comprehensive
tracking inventories to EPA every three years as required by EPA's Air
Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) or as required by other federal
regulations during the maintenance plan period.
5. Contingency Measures
    The contingency plan provisions for maintenance plans are designed
to promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan
include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to ensure that
a state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs
after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the events
that would ``trigger'' the adoption and implementation of a contingency
measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and
implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the
state would adopt and implement the measure(s).
    Maryland's maintenance plan outlines the procedures for the
adoption and implementation of contingency measures to further reduce
emissions should a violation occur. These procedures would be triggered
in one of three situations: (1) When the annual actual emissions of
SO2, NOX, or PM2.5 exceed the
attainment year inventories that are identified in Table 3; (2) when
there is an annual exceedance (annual average for one year at the
federal reference method monitor located in Washington County) of 15.0
[mu]g/m\3\; or, (3) When there is any violation (three year average of
the annual average at the Federal reference method monitor located in
Washington County) of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ or greater.
    If any future year emissions inventory indicates that the Maryland
portion of the Area's total emissions of SO2,
NOX, or PM2.5 exceeds the attainment year levels,
MDE would first perform an audit to determine if inventory refinements
are needed, including a review of whether appropriate models, control
strategies, monitoring strategies, planning assumptions, industrial
thoughput, and production data were used in the attainment year and
future year projections. If the audit does not reconcile the emissions
exceedances, MDE will implement one or more of the contingency measures
identified in the plan. If an annual exceedance of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\
occurs, MDE commits to implementing one of the contingency measures
identified for additional emission reductions, and if a violation
occurs, MDE commits to implementing two or more of the contingency
measures of programs identified to correct the violation.
    As explained in greater detail in Maryland's maintenance plan,
Maryland's candidate contingency measures include the following: (1)
PM2.5 RACM determinations; (2) NOX RACM
determination; (3) Non Road diesel emission reduction strategies; (4)
low sulfur home heating oil requirements; (5) alternative fuel and
diesel retrofit programs for fleet vehicle operations; and, (6) wet
suppression upgrade requirements for concrete manufacturing. EPA finds
that the maintenance plan for the Maryland portion of the Area includes
appropriate contingency measures as necessary to ensure Maryland will
promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. Finally, the maintenance plan establishes a schedule for
implementation of contingency measures if needed, and MDE has committed
to full implementation of contingency measures or programs within 24
months after notification by EPA that contingency measures must be
implemented or 27 months after quality assured data indicates an
exceedance or violation has occurred. For all of the reasons discussed
above, EPA is proposing to approve the 1997 annual PM2.5
maintenance plan for the Maryland portion of the Area as meeting the
requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

C. Transportation Conformity

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

 Table 4--MVEBs for Washington County, Maryland for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
                                 in tpy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Year                          PM2.5         NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017..........................................       149.63     4,057.00
2025..........................................        93.35     2,774.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of MVEBs are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Additionally, to approve the MVEBs, EPA
must complete a thorough review of the SIP, in this case the
PM2.5 maintenance plan, and conclude that with the projected
level of motor vehicle and all other emissions, the SIP will achieve
its overall purpose, in this case providing for maintenance of the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA's process for determining adequacy
of a MVEB consists of three basic steps: (1) Providing public
notification of a SIP submission; (2) providing the public the
opportunity to comment on the MVEB during a public comment period; and,
(3) EPA taking action on the MVEB.
    On February 12, 2014, EPA initiated an adequacy review of the MVEBs
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS that Maryland included in
its redesignation request submittal. As such, a notice of the
submission of these MVEBs were posted on the adequacy Web site
(http:[sol][sol]www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/
currsips.htm). The public comment period closed on March 14, 2014.
There were no public comments received. EPA has reviewed the MVEBs and
found them consistent with the maintenance plan and found that the
budgets meet the criteria for adequacy and approval. EPA published a
Notice of Adequacy in the Federal Register on May 7, 2014 (79 FR
26246). Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 and 2025
PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for Washington County for
transportation conformity purposes. Additional information pertaining
to the review of the MVEBs can be found in the TSD dated April 4, 2014,
available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking action.

VI. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to approve the redesignation of the Maryland
portion of the Martinsburg Area from nonattainment to attainment for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The monitoring data
demonstrates that the Martinsburg Area has attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and, for reasons discussed in this proposal,
that it will continue to attain the standard. EPA is also proposing to
approve the maintenance plan for the Maryland portion of the Area
submitted on December 12, 2013 as a revision to the Maryland SIP
because it meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA as
described previously in this rulemaking notice. Final approval of this
redesignation request would change the designation of the Maryland
portion of the Martinsburg Area from nonattainment to attainment, as
found at 40 CFR part 81, for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
and would incorporate into the Maryland SIP the maintenance plan
ensuring continued attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
in the Area for 10 years after redesignation. Furthermore, EPA is
proposing to approve the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and
NOX MVEBs submitted by Maryland for Washington County for
transportation conformity purposes. EPA is soliciting public comments
on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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 rule proposing to approve Maryland's
redesignation request, maintenance plan, and MVEBs for transportation
conformity purposes for the Maryland portion of the Area for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000)
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: August 6, 2014.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2014-19869 Filed 8-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P