[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 72 (Monday, April 15, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15108-15119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06128]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215; FRL-9991-44-Region 3]
Air Plan Approval; District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia;
Maryland and Virginia Redesignation Requests and District of Columbia,
Maryland, and Virginia Maintenance Plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA
2008 Ozone Standard Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
requests from the State of Maryland (Maryland) and the Commonwealth of
Virginia (Virginia) to redesignate to attainment their respective
portions of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area (hereafter
``the Washington Area'' or ``the Area'') for the 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard) (also
referred to as the 2008 ozone NAAQS) as Maryland's and Virginia's
portions of the Area meet the statutory requirements for redesignation
under the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is therefore redesignating the
following jurisdictions to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS: The
Counties of Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince
George's in Maryland as well as the Counties of Arlington, Fairfax,
Loudoun, and Prince William and the Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax,
Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park in Virginia. EPA is also
approving, as a revision to District of
[[Page 15109]]
Columbia's (the District), Maryland's, and Virginia's state
implementation plans (SIPs), the joint Washington Area maintenance plan
submitted by the District, Maryland, and Virginia, which demonstrates
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS through 2030 in the Washington
Area. The Washington Area maintenance plan includes motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are
precursors to ozone. EPA has found the MVEBs adequate and is approving,
as a SIP revision, these 2014, 2025, and 2030 NOX and VOC
MVEBs for the Washington Area.
DATES: This final rule is effective on May 15, 2019.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Calcinore, (215) 814-2043, or by
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On May 21, 2012 and June 11, 2012, EPA designated nonattainment
areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 77 FR 30088 and 77 FR 34221. Effective
July 20, 2012, the Washington Area was designated as marginal
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Washington Area consists of
the Counties of Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince
George's in Maryland, the Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and
Prince William and the Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church,
Manassas, and Manassas Park in Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
See 40 CFR 81.309, 81.321, and 81.347.
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows redesignation of an area to
attainment of the NAAQS provided that: (1) The Administrator (EPA)
determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the
Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the Administrator
determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of
the applicable SIP, applicable Federal air pollutant control
regulations, and other permanent and enforceable emission reductions;
(4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the
area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and (5)
the State containing the area has met all requirements applicable to
the area for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of
the CAA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The following EPA guidance documents are included in the
docket for this rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215: ``Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,''
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, September 4, 1992 (the ``Calcagni memorandum'') and
``State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or
After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993 (the ``Shapiro memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 12, 2018, February 5, 2018, and January 3, 2018, the
District, Maryland, and Virginia, respectively, formally submitted
requests to redesignate their portions of the Washington Area from
marginal nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\2\
Concurrently, the District, Maryland, and Virginia formally submitted,
as revisions to their respective SIPs, a joint maintenance plan
prepared by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG)
for the Washington Area to ensure continued attainment for at least 10
years following redesignation. The maintenance plan includes MVEBs for
NOX and VOC for the years 2014, 2025, and 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In the August 8, 2018 NPRM (83 FR 39019), EPA incorrectly
stated that Maryland's request to redesignate its portion of the
Washington Area was submitted on January 29, 2018. Maryland's
redesignation request and corresponding maintenance plan were
submitted February 5, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 8, 2018 (83 FR 39019), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the District, Maryland, and Virginia. In the
NPRM, EPA proposed approval of Maryland's and Virginia's requests to
redesignate to attainment their respective portions of the Washington
Area, pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3).\3\ EPA did not propose
approval of the redesignation request for the District's portion of the
Washington Area and will address the District's redesignation request
for its portion of the Area in a separate rulemaking action. EPA also
proposed to approve, as a revision to the District's, Maryland's, and
Virginia's SIPs, the joint maintenance plan submitted by the District,
Maryland, and Virginia that demonstrates maintenance of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS through 2030 in the Washington Area. Additionally, EPA proposed
to approve, as revisions to the District's, Maryland's, and Virginia's
SIPs, the 2014, 2025, and 2030 MVEBs for NOX and VOC for the
Washington Area identified in the Washington Area maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ As stated previously, Maryland's portion of the Washington
Area consists of the Counties of Calvert, Charles, Frederick,
Montgomery, and Prince George's. Virginia's portion of the
Washington Area consists of Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun,
and Prince William and the Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls
Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park in Virginia. In the August 8,
2018 NPRM, EPA proposed to redesignate these areas to attainment for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
EPA reviewed the District's, Maryland's, and Virginia's
redesignation requests and found that Maryland's and Virginia's
portions of the Washington Area have satisfied the requirements for
redesignation pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). As one of the
criteria for redesignation to attainment, section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of
the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved
maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA that demonstrates
continued attainment of the NAAQS for at least 10 years following
redesignation to attainment. EPA reviewed the joint maintenance plan
submitted by the District, Maryland, and Virginia and found that it
satisfies the requirements of section 175A. The Washington Area
maintenance plan includes 2014, 2025, and 2030 MVEBs for NOX
and VOC for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA found the submitted MVEBs
adequate and approvable as a revision to the District's, Maryland's,
and Virginia's SIPs.\4\ EPA's
[[Page 15110]]
rationale for these actions can be found in the August 8, 2018 NPRM and
corresponding Technical Support Documents (TSDs) included in the docket
for this action available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID:
EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The adequacy comment period for the MVEBs began on May 21,
2018, with EPA's posting of the availability of the District's,
Maryland's, and Virginia's maintenance plan submittal on EPA's
Adequacy website (at https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation). The adequacy comment period for these MVEBs ended
on June 20, 2018. EPA did not receive any adverse comments on this
submittal during the adequacy comment period. EPA originally
informed the District, Maryland, and Virginia that the 2014, 2025,
and 2030 MVEBs were adequate for use in transportation conformity
analyses in letters dated July 18, 2018. EPA revised language in
these letters and sent the revised letters to the District,
Maryland, and Virginia on July 24, 2018. The original and revised
letters are available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Public Comments and EPA Response
EPA received comments on the August 8, 2018 NPRM from four
commenters. Comments from two anonymous commenters did not concern any
of the specific issues raised in the NPRM, nor did they address EPA's
rationale for the proposed approval of Maryland's and Virginia's
redesignation requests or the District's, Maryland's, and Virginia's
joint maintenance plan. Therefore, EPA is not responding to those
comments. EPA received relevant comments from two commenters. Those
comments and EPA's responses are discussed below. All of the comments
received and any submitted attachments are included in the docket for
this action, available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-
R03-OAR-2018-0215.
Commenter 1: On August 16, 2018, EPA received anonymous comments on
the August 8, 2018 NPRM. The commenter questioned how EPA can
redesignate a portion of the Washington Area if the Area was designated
as one nonattainment area due to air quality in the entire Area not
meeting the standard. The commenter also questioned how the maintenance
plan for the entire Washington Area could be approved without first
redesignating the District's portion of the Area. The commenter
suggested that the entire Washington Area, including the District, be
redesignated prior to the approval of the maintenance plan.
EPA Response: Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, which sets forth the
criteria that must be met to redesignate a nonattainment area,
specifically mentions redesignating a portion of a nonattainment area.
Section 107(d)(3)(E) states that ``[t]he Administrator may not
promulgate a redesignation of a nonattainment area (or portion thereof)
to attainment unless . . .'' five criteria in sections 107(d)(3)(E)(i)-
(v) are met. (Emphasis added). Therefore, that statute allows EPA to
redesignate to attainment Maryland's and Virginia's portions of the
Washington Area without simultaneously redesignating the District's
portion. See, e.g., Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia-
Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area for the 1997 Annual and 2006
24-Hour fine particulate matter standard, final rulemaking for
redesignation, 80 FR 22112 (April 21, 2015); Ohio portion of the
Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-PA nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, final rulemaking for redesignation, 72 FR 32190 (June 12, 2007);
Indiana portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN nonattainment
area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, final rulemaking for redesignation, 75
FR 26113 (May 11, 2010); and, West Virginia portion of the Huntington-
Ashland, WV-KY nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, final
rulemaking for redesignation, 71 FR 54421 (September 15, 2006).
Regarding the initial nonattainment designation for the Area based
on air quality not meeting the standard, air quality in the entire Area
has improved, and on November 14, 2017, EPA determined that the entire
Washington Area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the July 20, 2016
attainment date. 82 FR 52651. As discussed in the August 8, 2018 NPRM,
the entire Washington Area also continues to attain the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Because the entire Area is in attainment, EPA received formal
requests from the District, Maryland, and Virginia to redesignate their
respective portions of the Washington Area to attainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. As explained in the NPRM, EPA found that Maryland and
Virginia have satisfied the CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) requirements for
redesignation of their respective portions of the Washington Area, so
EPA is approving Maryland's and Virginia's requests and redesignating
their respective portions of the Washington Area to attainment in
accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. As stated in the NPRM,
EPA will act on the District's redesignation request at a later date.
The commenter also questioned how EPA can approve the maintenance
plan for the Washington Area prior to redesignating the District's
portion of the Area. However, CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) requires
that in order to redesignate an area to attainment, EPA must first have
fully approved a maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements
of CAA section 175A. EPA has long interpreted that provision to also
allow for concurrent approval of the maintenance plan or other
necessary SIP submissions. See Calcagni memorandum at 7. Because a
maintenance plan is one of the prerequisites in sections
107(d)(3)(E)(i)-(iv) for redesignation, EPA cannot redesignate an area
until the area has a maintenance plan approved by EPA.
Furthermore, nothing in CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) or 175A prohibits
EPA from approving a maintenance plan for an area prior to
redesignating the area, and approving the maintenance plan into the
District's SIP prior to redesignating the District does not adversely
impact the District's ability to maintain the NAAQS and will provide
for continued maintenance in the Washington Area, including the
District, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is approving the
maintenance plan as a revision to the District's, Maryland's, and
Virginia's SIPs.
Commenter 2: On September 7, 2018, Earthjustice submitted comments
on the August 8, 2018 NPRM on behalf of Sierra Club. The following is a
summary of Earthjustice's comments and EPA's responses:
Comment 1: Earthjustice commented that redesignating the Washington
Area under the 2008 ozone standard ``would authorize weaker protections
against ozone despite the fact that the area continues to have
unhealthy levels of ozone.'' Earthjustice noted that EPA just
designated the Washington Area as nonattainment under the 2015 ozone
NAAQS and that the most recent 2017 design value for the Washington
Area is in violation of the 2015 standard. Earthjustice provided Air
Quality Index (AQI) data for several days from May 2018 to August 2018
and stated that this year, air quality monitors within the Washington
Area have ``repeatedly recorded ozone pollution levels exceeding the
level of even the 1997 standard, while far more often exceeding the
level of the 2008 and 2015 standards.'' \5\ Earthjustice stated that,
``It is inconsistent with the Act's [CAA] statutory design to allow
protections against the ozone pollution that plagues the region to be
weakened via a redesignation under the 2008 ozone standard.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Earthjustice submitted AQI data from May 2, 2018, May 24,
2018, June 18, 2018, June 30, 2018, July 3, 2018, July 9, 2018, July
10, 2018, July 16, 2018, and August 10, 2018 with their comment,
which are included in the docket for this action, available online
at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Response: EPA does not agree that redesignating the Washington
Area to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS will authorize weaker
protections against ozone in the area. The August 8, 2018 NPRM proposes
to redesignate the Washington Area only for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
does not affect the Washington Area's designation as marginal
nonattainment
[[Page 15111]]
for the more stringent 2015 ozone NAAQS. The 2008 ozone NAAQS and 2015
ozone NAAQS are two separate standards: Areas within states are
designated for each standard and must satisfy the requirements
applicable to their designation for each standard.\6\ The redesignation
of the Washington Area from marginal nonattainment to attainment of the
2008 ozone NAAQS will not change the Area's marginal nonattainment
designation under the 2015 ozone NAAQS, nor exempt the Area from
meeting the applicable requirements for marginal nonattainment areas
under the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Because the Washington Area was classified
as marginal nonattainment under both the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards,
the Area is subject to the same statutory and associated regulatory
requirements in subchapter I, Part D of the CAA under both standards.
Therefore, redesignating the Washington Area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
will not remove any of the protections related to the Washington Area's
marginal nonattainment designation under the more stringent 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ On October 26, 2015, EPA strengthened both the primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.070 parts per million
(ppm) (annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
concentration, averaged over 3 years). See 80 FR 65292. The 2015
ozone NAAQS is more stringent than the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which was
set at 0.075 ppm (annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
concentration, averaged over 3 years). See 73 FR 16483 (March 27,
2008). The Washington Area was designated as marginal nonattainment
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (83 FR 25776, June 4, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as demonstrated in the NPRM, air quality in the
Washington Area satisfies the CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) requirement
for redesignation to attainment under the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which
requires the Administrator (EPA) to determine that the area has
attained the applicable NAAQS. Therefore, in order to be redesignated
to attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the Washington Area must, among
other requirements, attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On November 14, 2017
(82 FR 52651), EPA determined that the entire Washington Area attained
the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the July 20, 2016 attainment date because all
of the Washington Area monitoring sites with valid data had design
values less than or equal to 0.075 ppm during the 2013-2015 monitoring
period. The Washington Area continues to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
as shown by 2014-2016 and 2015-2017 design values and preliminary 2016-
2018 design values throughout the Area that continue to be below the
0.075 ppm level of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A summary of the 2014 to 2016 ozone air quality data as well
as the preliminary 2015-2017 ozone design values were provided in
Table 1 of the August 8, 2018 NPRM. Since the publication of the
NPRM, the 2015-2017 design values were finalized and preliminary
2016-2018 design value data became available. This data is included
in the docket for this rulemaking action available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215.
Table 1--Washington Area 2014-2016, 2015-2017, and Preliminary 2016-2018 Ozone Design Values
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual 4th highest reading (ppm) 2014-2016 2015-2017 2016-2018
------------------------------------------------------- design design design
AQS site ID Site description Jurisdiction value value value
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) \8\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11-001-0041 \9\... 420 34th Street District of Columbia.. ......... ......... 0.065 0.056 0.050 0.056 0.060 0.057
NE, Washington,
DC 20019.
11-001-0043....... 2500 1st Street District of Columbia.. 0.068 0.072 0.072 0.071 0.073 0.070 0.071 0.072
NW, Washington,
DC.
11-001-0050....... 300 Van Buren District of Columbia.. 0.069 0.72 0.071 0.067 0.073 0.070 0.070 0.070
Street NW,
Washington, DC
20012.
24-009-0011....... 350 Stafford Road Maryland.............. 0.070 0.067 0.070 0.066 0.067 0.069 0.067 0.067
24-017-0010....... 14320 Oaks Road.. Maryland.............. 0.070 0.068 0.073 0.068 0.068 0.070 0.069 0.069
24-021-0037....... Frederick County Maryland.............. 0.063 0.070 0.070 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.069 0.068
Airport.
24-031-3001....... Lathrop E. Smith Maryland.............. 0.064 0.072 0.068 0.065 0.069 0.068 0.068 0.067
Environmental
Education Center.
24-033-0030....... Howard Maryland.............. 0.065 0.072 0.070 0.069 0.070 0.069 0.070 0.069
University's
Beltsville
Laboratory.
24-033-8003....... PG County Maryland.............. 0.069 0.069 0.073 0.072 0.070 0.070 0.071 0.071
Equestrian
Center.
24-033-9991....... Powder Mill Rd Maryland.............. 0.069 0.067 0.070 0.070 0.073 0.068 0.069 0.071
Laurel, MD 20708.
51-013-0020....... S 18th and Hayes Virginia.............. 0.071 0.073 0.072 0.070 0.070 0.072 0.071 0.070
St..
51-059-0030....... STA. 46-B9, Lee Virginia.............. 0.065 0.072 0.073 0.068 0.066 0.070 0.071 0.069
Park, Telegraph
Road.
51-107-1005....... 38-I, Broad Run Virginia.............. 0.063 0.071 0.068 0.066 0.065 0.067 0.068 0.066
High School,
Ashburn.
51-153-0009....... James S. Long Virginia.............. 0.062 0.067 0.067 0.065 0.065 0.065 0.066 0.065
Park.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the Washington Area has satisfied the requirement in CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) for redesignation to attainment of the 2008
ozone NAAQS. The Washington Area's designation status for the 2015
ozone NAAQS is not relevant to determining if the Area has satisfied
the requirement in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) for redesignation for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ As noted previously, the 2016-2018 design values are
preliminary.
\9\ The 2014 and 2015 data at monitoring site 11-001-0041 (also
referred to as ``the River Terrace monitor'') is incomplete.
Therefore, the 2014-2016 and 2015-2017 design values are invalid.
The River Terrace monitor was temporarily shut down in March 2014
due to renovations at the monitoring site. The River Terrace monitor
was reinstated in 2016, and began operation in May 2016. The
temporary shutdown of the River Terrace monitor is discussed in more
detail in the TSD for the August 8, 2018 NPRM available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that the 2015-2017 design value exceeds the 2015 ozone
standard of 0.070 ppm but does not exceed the 2008 ozone standard of
0.075 ppm. Because this redesignation is only for the less stringent
2008 standard, a design value above the 2015 standard is not relevant,
as long as it is below the 2008 standard. In addition, the other
monitoring data (the AQI data) provided by Earthjustice are not design
values. The values provided by Earthjustice are daily maximum
concentrations of ozone at monitors located in the Washington Area.
Compliance with the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as well as the 1997 and 2015
NAAQS, is not determined based on daily maximum concentrations, as
implied by Earthjustice, but on design values exceeding the particular
NAAQS standard. A design value for an air quality monitor is the three-
year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations recorded at that monitor. See 40 CFR 50.15(b). An
area's design value is based on the monitor in the area which records
the highest design value over the three-year period. As discussed in
the August 8, 2018 NPRM, an area ``attains'' the 2008 ozone NAAQS if
the area's design value is below 0.075 ppm. The final 2015-2017 design
values, shown in Table 1, are below the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The most
recent preliminary air quality monitoring data (2016-2018 design value)
is also consistent with this finding. Thus, there is no evidence that
the ozone design value for the Washington Area exceeded the 2008 ozone
standard.
Comment 2: Earthjustice also stated that EPA cannot approve the
[[Page 15112]]
redesignation of the Washington Area because the Area has not satisfied
its anti-backsliding obligations under the 1997 ozone standard.
Earthjustice commented that EPA failed to evaluate in the NPRM if the
Washington Area has met the anti-backsliding requirements under the
1997 ozone NAAQS and that Virginia lacks EPA-approved reasonably
available control technology (RACT) SIPs under the 1997 standard.
Specifically, Earthjustice referenced EPA's ``SIP Dashboard,'' which
showed that for Virginia's portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA
nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS,\10\ EPA had not approved
the following RACT VOC control techniques guidelines (CTGs): Control
Techniques Guidelines for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly
Coatings (Publication No. EPA 453/R-08-006; September 2008) (auto and
light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG), Control Techniques Guidelines
for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing (Publication No. EPA 453/R-08-004;
September 2008) (fiberglass boat manufacturing materials CTG), Control
Techniques Guidelines for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings (Publication No.
EPA 453/R-06-004; September 2006) (flat wood paneling coatings CTG),
Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing
(Publication No. EPA 453/R-06-003; September 2006) (flexible packaging
printing materials CTG), Control Techniques Guidelines for Large
Appliance Coatings (Publication No. EPA 453/R-07-004; September 2007)
(large appliance coatings CTG), Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal
Furniture Coatings (Publication No. EPA 453/R-07-005; September 2007)
(metal furniture coatings CTG), Control Techniques Guidelines for
Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings (Publication No. EPA 453/R-07-003;
September 2007) (paper, film, and foil coatings CTG), and Control of
Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process
Unit Turnarounds (Publication No. EPA 450/2-77-025; October 1977)
(refinery vacuum producing systems, wastewater separators, and process
unit turnarounds CTG).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ On April 30, 2004, EPA designated the following areas in
Virginia as moderate nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS: The
Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William and the
Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas
Park. See 69 FR 23858.
\11\ A copy of the list submitted by Earthjustice to EPA as part
of Earthjustice's comment is included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215. The current version of EPA's ``SIP
Dashboard'' may be accessed online at https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/sip-status-reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Response: EPA disagrees that the Washington Area has not met
its anti-backsliding requirements for the 1997 ozone standard. In
accordance with 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(1), the Washington Area is subject to
those anti-backsliding controls listed in 40 CFR 51.1100(o) that were
applicable to an area with a moderate nonattainment classification as
of the time of revocation, until the area is redesignated to attainment
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA believes Virginia and Maryland have
complied with all applicable anti-backsliding requirements for the
revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Specifically, with respect to ozone RACT requirements under the
revoked 1997 standard, EPA believes that Virginia has met its
obligations. The commenter is correct that at the time Earthjustice
submitted its comment, EPA's ``SIP Dashboard'' indicated that Virginia
did not have an approved RACT SIP for the refinery vacuum producing
systems, wastewater separators, and process unit turnarounds CTG under
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. However, this entry in the SIP Dashboard was
incorrect. On October 23, 2006, Virginia submitted a SIP revision to
EPA that addressed the requirements of RACT under the 1997 ozone NAAQS
(also referred to at the time as the ``8-hour ozone NAAQS'') for all
RACT VOC CTGs that were due at the time (September 15, 2006). EPA found
that Virginia met all of the RACT requirements,\12\ including those
addressing the refinery vacuum producing systems, wastewater
separators, and processes unit turnarounds CTG in question. On June 16,
2009 (74 FR 28444), EPA finalized approval of Virginia's October 23,
2006 SIP revision as satisfying the requirements of RACT under the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ EPA found that Virginia met all of the RACT requirements
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through: Certification that
previously adopted RACT controls in Virginia's SIP that were
approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are based on the
currently available technically and economically feasible controls,
and that they continue to represent RACT for 1997 8-hour
implementation purposes; a negative declaration demonstrating that
no facilities exist in the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-
MD-VA 1997 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area for certain CTG
categories; and a new RACT determination for a specific source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to Virginia's 2006 submittal, EPA issued additional CTGs
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in September 2006, 2007, and 2008.\13\ With
respect to CTG requirements covering lithographic printing materials
and letterpress printing materials, industrial cleaning solvents,
miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and miscellaneous metal products
coatings and plastic parts coatings, Virginia submitted three SIP
revisions on February 1, 2016 adopting RACT for these source categories
located in the Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
Control Area. On August 23, 2016 (81 FR 57531), EPA approved Virginia's
SIP revisions adopting RACT for these source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The following RACT VOC CTGs were issued and/or became due
after Virginia submitted their SIP submittal addressing the RACT CTG
requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS: Auto and light-duty truck
assembly coatings CTG; fiberglass boat manufacturing materials CTG;
flat wood paneling coatings CTG; flexible packaging printing
materials CTG; Control Techniques Guidelines for Industrial Cleaning
Solvents (Publication No. EPA 453/R-06-001; September 2006)
(industrial cleaning solvents CTG); large appliance coatings CTG;
metal furniture coatings CTG; Control Techniques Guidelines for
Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives (Publication No. EPA 453/R-08-
005; September 2008) (miscellaneous industrial adhesives CTG);
Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic
Parts Coatings (Publication No. EPA 453/R-08-003; September 2008)
(miscellaneous metal products coatings and plastic parts coatings
CTGs); Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic
Printing and Letterpress Printing (Publication No. EPA 453/R-06-002;
September 2006) (lithographic printing materials and letterpress
printing materials); and paper, film, and foil coatings CTG. These
CTGs were due one year from the date they were issued. Therefore,
they were not addressed in Virginia's October 23, 2006 submittal
addressing RACT requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other 1997 ozone NAAQS CTGs issued subsequent to Virginia's 2006
SIP submission include those covering flat wood paneling coatings,
flexible packaging printing materials, large appliance coatings, paper,
film, and foil coatings, metal furniture coatings, fiberglass boat
manufacturing materials, and auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings. However, no sources subject to these CTGs are located within
the Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Control
Area.\14\ Virginia therefore sent negative declaration letters to EPA
on November 25, 2008 for the flat wood paneling coatings CTG and
flexible packaging printing materials CTG, on December 3, 2008 for the
large appliance coatings CTG, paper, film, and foil coatings CTG, and
metal furniture coatings CTG, on May 6, 2009 for the fiberglass boat
manufacturing materials CTG, and on May 18, 2009 for the auto and
light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG.\15\ These
[[Page 15113]]
negative declaration letters certified that there are no sources
located in the Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
Control Area subject to the RACT VOC CTGs for fiberglass boat
manufacturing materials and auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings
and no sources located in the Commonwealth of Virginia subject to the
RACT VOC CTGs for large appliance coatings, paper, film, and foil
coatings, metal furniture coatings, flat wood paneling coatings, and
flexible packaging printing materials. Virginia has recently re-
certified that there are no sources located in the relevant Control
Area subject to these same CTGs as part of its December 12, 2017 SIP
submission addressing Virginia's RACT obligations under the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.\16\ In addition, EPA consulted the latest version of EPA's
National Emissions Inventory (2014 NEI v2) and confirmed that no
facilities subject to these CTGs were found in Virginia's portion of
the Washington Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
Control Area consists of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince
William, and Stafford Counties as well as the cities of Alexandria,
Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, Manassas Park and therefore
includes Virginia's portion of the Washington Area plus Stafford
County.
\15\ These negative declaration letters were submitted by
Virginia in order to meet section 105 grant commitments for 2009 and
2010 and are included in the docket for this rulemaking available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-
0215.
\16\ We note that RACT SIPs submitted to address the 2008 ozone
NAAQS are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation
under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). As explained in the
August 8, 2018 NPRM, EPA has interpreted the CAA section 184
requirements, including reasonable available control technology
(RACT), as not applicable under these provisions because they apply
to the Washington Area pursuant to the Area's inclusion in the ozone
transport region (OTR), and are not tied to the area's designation
status. See 61 FR 53174, 53175-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR
24826, 24830-24832 (May 7, 1997). Therefore, the Washington Area
will remain subject to the requirements of CAA section 184,
including RACT, even after redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 3: Earthjustice stated that EPA cannot approve the proposed
maintenance plan because the contingency measures do not include
implementation of ``all measures with respect to the control of the air
pollutant concerned which were contained in the State implementation
plan for the area before redesignation of the area.'' See CAA section
175A(d).
EPA Response: The District, Maryland, and Virginia are not moving
any of their existing SIP-approved measures into the contingency plan.
These measures remain part of their active SIPs. Therefore, these
measures are not included as part of the contingency plan in the
maintenance plan for the Washington Area. The District's, Maryland's,
and Virginia's maintenance plan states, ``This maintenance plan
includes a commitment to continue to enforce all applicable
requirements of past revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP)
after the ozone nonattainment area is redesignated to attainment.''
\17\ On February 26, 2019, February 27, 2019, and February 6, 2019, EPA
received letters from the District, Maryland, and Virginia,
respectively, clarifying that this statement in the maintenance plan
was intended to mean that, in accordance with section 175A(d) of the
CAA, the District, Maryland, and Virginia will implement all measures,
with respect to the control of ozone, that were contained in the SIPs
for the Washington Area prior to redesignation of the Area to
attainment and that any measures currently in the District's,
Maryland's, and Virginia's SIPs, with respect to the control of ozone,
will be retained as contingency measures for the 20-year maintenance
period following redesignation of the Washington Area to attainment for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\18\ Therefore, EPA finds that the maintenance
plan for the Washington Area satisfies the requirement of CAA section
175A(d) referenced in Earthjustice's comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See pages 11 and 15-17 of the ``Maintenance Plan for the
Washington DC-MD-VA 2008 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area,'' prepared
by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, December 20,
2017 included in the docket for this rulemaking available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215.
\18\ These February 26, 2019, February 27, 2019, and February 6,
2019 clarifying letters from the District, Maryland, and Virginia,
respectively, are included in the docket for this rulemaking
available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-
OAR-2018-0215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: Earthjustice commented that EPA cannot approve the
maintenance plan because EPA proposed to approve ``a commitment to
adopt contingency measures to address violations'' as a contingency
measure. Earthjustice stated that EPA cannot approve the contingency
measures in the maintenance plan because the commitment to adopt
contingency measures to address violations is a ``promise to do later
what's required now'' by CAA section 175A(d).
EPA Response: Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include contingency provisions, as necessary, to
promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation of the area. States are not required to have fully-
adopted contingency measures in their SIP in order for the maintenance
plan to be approved.\19\ Contingency measures are adopted and
implemented by a State if a violation of the NAAQS occurs in the
maintenance area or if a triggering event (also referred to as an
``indicator'') identified by the State in its maintenance plan
occurs.\20\ The District's, Maryland's, and Virginia's joint
maintenance plan identifies specific measures that EPA has found to be
appropriate to use as contingency measures.\21\ In addition to these
measures, the District, Maryland, and Virginia commit in their
maintenance plan to adopt, as SIP revisions, additional contingency
measures if necessary to address a violation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
the Washington Area. This commitment strengthens the contingency
measures in the maintenance plan by providing assurance that if a
violation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS occurs in the Washington Area that
may not be responsive using the existing contingency measures in the
maintenance plan, the District, Maryland, and Virginia can assess the
specific cause of the violation and adopt appropriate, tailored
contingency measures as necessary. The contingency measures included in
the District's, Maryland's, and Virginia's maintenance plan satisfy the
requirements for contingency measures in CAA section 175A as well as
the Calcagni memorandum.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (the ``Calcagni
memorandum'') included in the docket for this rulemaking available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-
0215.
\20\ The Calcagni memorandum states that the State should
identify in the maintenance plan specific indicators, or
``triggers'', to be used to determine when the contingency measures
need to be implemented.
\21\ See the discussion of the contingency measures included in
the District's, Maryland's, and Virginia's maintenance plan in the
August 8, 2018 NPRM as well as the July 19, 2018 ``Technical Support
Document for the Approval of the Maryland and Virginia Redesignation
Requests and District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia
Maintenance Plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 2008 Ozone Standard
Nonattainment Area'' included in the docket for this rulemaking
available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-
OAR-2018-0215.
\22\ For a detailed analysis of the contingency measures
included in the District's, Maryland's, and Virginia's maintenance
plan, see the August 8, 2018 NPRM as well as the July 19, 2018
``Technical Support Document for the Approval of the Maryland and
Virginia Redesignation Requests and District of Columbia, Maryland,
and Virginia Maintenance Plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 2008
Ozone Standard Nonattainment Area'' included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0215.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5: Earthjustice commented that if EPA approves the proposed
redesignation, EPA ``should make clear in the final action that the
redesignation does not affect obligations that apply via the Washington
nonattainment area's severe classification under the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS.''
[[Page 15114]]
EPA Response: EPA's approval of Maryland's and Virginia's
redesignation requests for the Washington Area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
and the associated maintenance plan submitted by the District,
Maryland, and Virginia pertains to the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the anti-
backsliding requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and does not affect
obligations that apply under 40 CFR 51.905(a) for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 882 F.3d 1138, 1151
(D.C. Cir. 2018).
Comment 6: Earthjustice stated that EPA should not finalize the
August 8, 2018 NPRM nor redesignate the Washington Area to attainment
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with Earthjustice's comment that EPA
should not finalize the August 8, 2018 NPRM. EPA finds that Maryland's
and Virginia's portions of the Washington Area satisfy the requirements
for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. EPA also still finds that the joint maintenance plan submitted
by the District, Maryland, and Virginia for the Washington Area
satisfies the requirements of CAA section 175A. Therefore, EPA is
approving the requests from Maryland and Virginia to redesignate to
attainment their respective portions of the Washington Area for the
2008 ozone NAAQS as well as the joint maintenance plan submitted by the
District, Maryland, and Virginia.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving the requests from Maryland and Virginia to
redesignate to attainment their respective portions of the Washington
Area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is not at this time approving the
redesignation request from the District but will address the District's
redesignation request in a separate rulemaking action. EPA is also
approving, as a revision to the District's, Maryland's, and Virginia's
SIPs, the joint maintenance plan submitted by the District, Maryland,
and Virginia. The joint maintenance plan demonstrates maintenance of
the 2008 ozone NAAQS through 2030 in the Washington Area and includes
2014, 2025, and 2030 MVEBs for NOX and VOCs for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Finally, EPA has found adequate and is approving these
2014, 2025, and 2030 NOX and VOC MVEBs for the Washington
Area.
V. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their federal counterparts. . . .'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec. 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the air quality designation status
of geographical areas and do not impose any additional regulatory
requirements on sources beyond those required by state law. A
redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself impose any new
requirements, but rather results in the application of requirements
contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to
attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735,
[[Page 15115]]
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 14, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action approving Maryland's and Virginia's redesignation
requests for their respective portions of the Washington Area as well
as the District's, Maryland's, and Virginia's maintenance plan for the
Washington Area may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce
its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: March 19, 2019.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
Title 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart J--District of Columbia
0
2. In Sec. 52.470, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``Maintenance plan for the District of Columbia portion of
the Washington, DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' at the end of the table to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.470 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable State
revision geographic area submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance plan for the District of 3/12/18 4/15/2019, [Insert Sec. 52.476(j).
District of Columbia portion Columbia. Federal Register
of the Washington, DC-MD-VA citation].
Nonattainment Area for the
2008 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Section 52.476 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.476 Control strategy: ozone.
* * * * *
(j) EPA approves the maintenance plan for the District of Columbia
portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS submitted by the Director of the District of Columbia
Department of Energy and Environment on March 12, 2018. The maintenance
plan includes 2014, 2025, and 2030 motor vehicle emission budgets
[[Page 15116]]
(MVEBs) for VOC and NOX to be applied to all future
transportation conformity determinations and analyses for the entire
Washington, DC-MD-VA area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
maintenance plan includes two sets of VOC and NOX MVEBs: The
MVEBs without transportation buffers are effective as EPA has
determined them adequate for transportation conformity purposes; the
MVEBs with transportation buffers will be used only as needed in
situations where the conformity analysis must be based on different
data, models, or planning assumptions, including, but not limited to,
updates to demographic, land use, or project-related assumptions, than
were used to create the set of MVEBs without transportation buffers.
The technical analyses used to demonstrate compliance with the MVEBs
and the need, if any, to use transportation buffers will be fully
documented in the conformity analysis and follow the Transportation
Planning Board's (TPB) interagency consultation procedures.
Table 3 to Paragraph (j)--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date of
Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOX (TPD) adequacy determination
of SIP approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Plan...................... 2014 61.3 136.8 5/15/2019.
2025 33.2 40.7
2030 24.1 27.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 to Paragraph (j)--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets With Transportation Buffers for the Washington, DC-MD-
VA Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date of
Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOX (TPD) adequacy determination
of SIP approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Plan...................... 2014 61.3 136.8 Contingent and effective
2025 39.8 48.8 upon interagency
2030 28.9 32.9 consultation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart V--Maryland
0
4. In Sec. 52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``Maintenance plan for the Maryland portion of the
Washington, DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' at the end of the table to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1070 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable State
revision geographic area submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Maintenance plan for the Calvert, Charles, 2/5/2018 4/15/2019, [Insert Sec. 52.1076(ee).
Maryland portion of the Frederick, Federal Register
Washington, DC-MD-VA Montgomery, and citation].
Nonattainment Area for the Prince George's
2008 8-hour ozone National Counties.
Ambient Air Quality Standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
5. Section 52.1076 is amended by adding paragraph (ee) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1076 Control strategy plans for attainment and rate-of-
progress: Ozone.
* * * * *
(ee) EPA approves the maintenance plan for the Maryland portion of
the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS submitted by the Secretary of the Maryland Department of the
Environment on February 5, 2018. The maintenance plan includes 2014,
2025, and 2030 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for VOC and
NOX to be applied to all future transportation conformity
determinations and analyses for the entire Washington, DC-MD-VA area
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan includes two sets
of VOC and NOX MVEBs: The MVEBs without transportation
buffers are effective as EPA has determined them adequate for
transportation conformity purposes; the MVEBs with transportation
buffers will be used only as needed in situations where the conformity
analysis must be based on different data, models, or planning
assumptions, including, but not limited to, updates to demographic,
land use, or project-related assumptions, than were used to create the
set of MVEBs without transportation buffers. The technical analyses
used to demonstrate compliance with the MVEBs and the need, if any, to
use transportation buffers will be fully documented in the conformity
analysis and follow the Transportation Planning Board's (TPB)
interagency consultation procedures.
[[Page 15117]]
Table 9 to Paragraph (ee)--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date of
Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOX (TPD) adequacy determination
of SIP approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Plan...................... 2014 61.3 136.8 5/15/2019.
2025 33.2 24.1
2030 40.7 27.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 10 to Paragraph (ee)--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets With Transportation Buffers for the Washington, DC-
MD-VA Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date of
Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOX (TPD) adequacy determination
of SIP approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Plan...................... 2014 61.3 136.8 Contingent and effective
2025 39.8 48.8 upon interagency
2030 28.9 32.9 consultation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart VV--Virginia
0
6. In Sec. 52.2420, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
an entry for ``Maintenance plan for the Virginia portion of the
Washington, DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for the 2008 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' at the end of the table to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2420 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable State
revision geographic area submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Maintenance plan for the Arlington, 1/3/18 4/15/2019, [Insert Sec. 52.2428(m).
Virginia portion of the Fairfax, Loudoun, Federal Register
Washington, DC-MD-VA and Prince citation].
Nonattainment Area for the William Counties
2008 8-hour ozone National and the Cities of
Ambient Air Quality Standard. Alexandria,
Fairfax, Falls
Church, Manassas,
and Manassas Park.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
7. Section 52.2428 is amended by adding paragraph (m) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2428 Control Strategy: Carbon monoxide and ozone.
* * * * *
(m) EPA approves the maintenance plan for the Virginia portion of
the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS submitted by the Director of the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality on January 3, 2018. The maintenance plan includes
2014, 2025, and 2030 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for VOC and
NOX to be applied to all future transportation conformity
determinations and analyses for the entire Washington, DC-MD-VA area
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan includes two sets
of VOC and NOX MVEBs: The MVEBs without transportation
buffers are effective as EPA has determined them adequate for
transportation conformity purposes; the MVEBs with transportation
buffers will be used only as needed in situations where the conformity
analysis must be based on different data, models, or planning
assumptions, including, but not limited to, updates to demographic,
land use, or project-related assumptions, than were used to create the
set of MVEBs without transportation buffers. The technical analyses
used to demonstrate compliance with the MVEBs and the need, if any, to
use transportation buffers will be fully documented in the conformity
analysis and follow the Transportation Planning Board's (TPB)
interagency consultation procedures.
Table 3 to Paragraph (m)--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date of
Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOX (TPD) adequacy determination
of SIP approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Plan...................... 2014 61.3 136.8 5/15/2019.
2025 33.2 40.7
2030 24.1 27.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15118]]
Table 4 to Paragraph (m)--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets With Transportation Buffers for the Washington, DC-MD-
VA Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective date of
Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOX (TPD) adequacy determination
of SIP approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Plan...................... 2014 61.3 136.8 Contingent and effective
2025 39.8 48.8 upon interagency
2030 28.9 32.9 consultation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES
0
8. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations
0
9. In Sec. 81.321, the table ``Maryland--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
(Primary and secondary)'' is amended by revising the entry
``Washington, DC-MD-VA:'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.321 Maryland.
* * * * *
Maryland--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date\1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Washington, DC-MD-VA: \2\....... April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Calvert County.............. April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Charles County.............. April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Frederick County............ April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Montgomery County........... April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Prince George's County...... April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
10. In Sec. 81.347, the table ``Virginia--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
(Primary and secondary)'' is amended by:
0
a. Removing the footnote designation from the table heading
``Designated area'';
0
b. Revising the footnote designations for both ``Date'' table headings;
and
0
c. Revising the entry ``Washington, DC-MD-VA:''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 81.347 Virginia.
* * * * *
Virginia--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
[Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date\1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington, DC-MD-VA: \2\....... April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Arlington County............ April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Fairfax County.............. April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Loudoun County.............. April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Prince William County....... April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Alexandria City............. April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Fairfax City................ April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Falls Church City........... April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Manassas City............... April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
Manassas Park City.......... April 15, 2019.... Attainment........
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
[[Page 15119]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-06128 Filed 4-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P