Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 45735 

Repeal. EPA is not proposing to approve 

the portion of Mississippi’s February 10, 

2012, SIP submission that IBR the CO2

Biomass Deferral Rule at APC–S–5 as a 

result of the July 12, 2013, court 

decision identified above. EPA may 

address this portion of Mississippi’s SIP 

submission in a separate rulemaking. 

Regarding reasonable possibility, the 

February 10, 2012, SIP revision removes 

the reasonable possibility exclusion at 

APC–S–5(2.6) and IBR EPA’s December 

21, 2007, revised definition of 

reasonable possibility into its SIP. 

Mississippi’s February 10, 2012, SIP 

revision also adopts the repeal of the 

PM2.5 Grandfathering Provision. 

Mississippi’s February 10, 2012, SIP 

submittal incorporates into the 

Mississippi SIP the version of 40 CFR 

52.21 as of November 4, 2011, which 

includes the May 18, 2011, repeal of the 

grandfather provision. Thus, the 

language previously approved into 

Mississippi SIP at APC–S–5(2.7) that 

excludes the grandfathering provision is 

no longer necessary. Mississippi’s 

February 10, 2012, SIP submittal 

removes the unnecessary language 

pertaining to the grandfather provision 

from APC–S–5. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve portions 

of Mississippi’s February 10, 2012, SIP 

submission that update the IBR date in 

APC–S–5 to November 4, 2011, for the 

Federal PSD permitting regulations at 40 

CFR 52.21 to include the Reasonable 

Possibility Rule and the PM10 Surrogate 

and Grandfather Policy Repeal. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that these portions of the SIP revision 

are approvable because they are 

consistent with section 110 of the CAA 

and EPA PSD permitting regulations. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 F43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: July 28, 2014. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18625 Filed 8–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0148; FRL–9914–71– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 

Approval of the Redesignation 

Requests and Maintenance Plan of the 

Washington, DC–MD–VA 

Nonattainment Area for the 1997 

Annual Fine Particulate Matter 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the requests from the District of 

Columbia (the District), the State of 

Maryland (Maryland), and the 

Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) 

(collectively ‘‘the States’’) to redesignate 

to attainment their respective portions 

of the Washington, DC–MD–VA 

nonattainment area (hereafter ‘‘the 

Washington Area’’ or ‘‘the Area’’) for the 

1997 annual fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS or standard). EPA is 

also proposing to approve as a revision 

to their respective State Implementation 

Plans (SIPs) the common maintenance 

plan submitted by the States to show 

maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS through 2025 for the 

Washington Area. The Washington Area 

maintenance plan includes motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for 

PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) for the 

Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard, 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 5, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0148 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: Fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0148, 

Cristina Ferna ́ndez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Quality Planning, Mailcode 

3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45736 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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– 

0148. 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 submittals are 

available at District of Columbia, 

Department of the Environment, Air 

Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 

5th floor, Washington, DC 20002; 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230; and Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

629 East Main Street, Richmond, 

Virginia 23219, respectively. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emlyn Ve ́lez-Rosa, (215) 814–2038, or 

by e-mail at velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov. 

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 DC 

Circuit Court’s Decisions Regarding 

EPA’s CSAPR 

B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 DC Circuit 

Court Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation under Subpart 4 of Part 

D of Title I of the CAA 

V. EPA’s Analysis of States’ SIP Submittals 

A. Requests for Redesignation 

B. Maintenance Plan 

C. Transportation Conformity 

Determination 

VI. Proposed Actions 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The first air quality standards for 

PM2.5 were established on July 16, 1997 

(62 FR 38652, July 18, 1997). EPA 

promulgated an annual standard at a 

level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3), based on a three-year average of 

annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard). In the 

same rulemaking action, EPA 

promulgated a 24-hour standard of 65 

mg/m3, 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

standards. In that rulemaking action, 

EPA designated the Washington Area as 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard. The Washington Area 

includes the entire District of Columbia; 

Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince 

William Counties and the cities of 

Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, 

Manassas, and Manassas Park in 

Virginia; and Charles, Frederick, 

Montgomery, and Prince George’s 

Counties in Maryland. See 40 CFR 

81.309, 81.321, and 81.347. 

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), 

EPA retained the annual average 

standard at 15 mg/m3, but revised the 24- 

hour standard to 35 mg/m3, based again 

on the three-year average of the 98th 

percentile of 24-hour concentrations 

(the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard). On 

November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA 

published designations for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standard, which became 

effective on December 14, 2009. The 

Washington Area was not designated as 

a nonattainment area for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In response to legal challenges of the 

2006 annual PM2.5 standard, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia (DC Circuit Court) 

remanded this standard to EPA for 

further consideration. See American 

Farm Bureau Federation and National 

Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 

559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). However, 

given that the 1997 annual and the 2006 

annual PM2.5 standards are essentially 

identical, attainment of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard would also indicate 

attainment of the remanded 2006 annual 

PM2.5 standard. Since the Washington 

Area is designated nonattainment only 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 

today’s proposed rulemaking action 

addresses the redesignation to 

attainment only for this standard. 

On January 12, 2009 (74 FR 1146), 

EPA determined that the entire 

Washington Area had attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard, based on 2004– 

2006 and 2005–2007 quality-assured, 

quality-controlled, and certified ambient 

air quality monitoring data. Pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.1004(c), this ‘‘clean data’’ 

determination suspended the 

requirements for each of the States to 

submit for their jurisdiction of the 

Washington Area an attainment 

demonstration and associated 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), a reasonable further progress 

(RFP) plan, contingency measures, and 

other planning SIP revisions related to 

the attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS 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 

by the States. Subsequently, on January 

10, 2012 (77 FR 1411), EPA determined, 

pursuant to section 179(c), that the 

entire Washington Area had attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its 

statutory attainment date of April 5, 

2010. 

The District of Columbia Department 

of the Environment (DDOE), the 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE), and the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ) worked together in developing 

a combined document to address the 

requirements for redesignation of the 

Washington Area for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The States also 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 45737 

developed a common maintenance plan 

as a revision to their respective SIPs to 

ensure continued attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard in the 

Washington Area throughout 2025. The 

1997 annual PM2.5 redesignation 

requests and maintenance plans for the 

Washington Area were submitted to 

EPA by DDOE on June 3, 2013, by MDE 

on July 10, 2013, and by VADEQ on 

June 3, 2013. The emissions inventories 

included in the Washington Area 

maintenance plans were subsequently 

supplemented by the States to provide 

for emissions estimates of VOC and 

ammonia. The supplemental inventories 

were submitted to EPA on July 22, 2013 

by DDOE, on July 26, 2013 by MDE, and 

on July 17, 2013 by VADEQ. In addition, 

the maintenance plan includes the 2017 

and 2025 PM2.5 and NOx MVEBs used 

for transportation conformity purposes 

for the entire Washington Area for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

II. EPA’s Requirements 

A. Criteria for Redesignation to 

Attainment 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for 

redesignation providing that: (1) EPA 

determines that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS; (2) EPA has fully 

approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

section 110(k); (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. 

EPA has provided guidance on 

redesignation in the ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clean Air Act 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 the ‘‘1992 

Calcagni Memorandum’’); (2) ‘‘State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions 

Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act 

(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, 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 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. 

III. Summary of Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to take several 

rulemaking actions related to the 

redesignation of the Washington Area to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. First, EPA is proposing to find 

that the States meet the requirements for 

redesignation of the Washington Area 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

the Washington Area’s maintenance 

plan for the Area as a revision to the 

District, Virginia, and Maryland SIPs 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 

Area maintenance plan is designed to 

ensure continued attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard in the entire Area 

for 10 years after redesignation, until 

2025. Third, EPA is 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 Area’s maintenance 

plan. EPA previously determined that 

the Washington Area has attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In this 

rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to 

find that the Area continues to attain the 

standard. 

IV. Effect 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 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 decision 

vacating and remanding the Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Second, 

EPA is 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’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 alter the Agency’s 

proposal to redesignate the Washington 

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 DC 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45738 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1As 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. 

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 their submissions, the States do not 

rely on either CAIR or CSAPR for 

emission reductions that contributed to 

the Washington Area’s attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, nor do the 

States rely on either of the rules to show 

maintenance of the standard in the Area 

for 10 years following redesignation. 

However, because CAIR was 

promulgated in 2005 and incentivized 

sources and states to begin achieving 

early emission reductions, the air 

quality data examined by EPA in issuing 

a final determination of attainment for 

the Washington Area in 2009 (January 

12, 2009, 74 FR 1146) 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 Washington 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 Washington 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 emissions reductions from 

CAIR or CSAPR. See Appendix B of 

EPA’s ‘‘Air Quality Modeling Final Rule 

Technical Support Document,’’ (Pages 

B–38, B–46, and B–61), which is 

available in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking action. In addition, the 

2010–2012 quality-assured, qualitycontrolled, and certified monitoring 

data for the Washington 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 Washington 

Area’s monitoring data for 2010–2012. 

The status of CSAPR is not relevant to 

these redesignations. 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 

Washington 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 

these redesignation requests for the 

Washington Area. 

B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. 

Circuit Court Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 of Part 

D of Title I of the CAA 

1. Background 

On January 4, 2013, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the 

D.C. Circuit Court remanded to EPA the 

1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule. 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) v. EPA, 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-matterspecific provisions of subpart 4 of Part 

D of Title I (subpart 4). 

Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision, 

states had worked towards meeting the 

air quality goals of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with EPA 

regulations and guidance derived from 

subpart 1. Subsequent to this decision, 

in rulemaking that responds to the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s remand, EPA took this 

history into account by proposing to set 

a new deadline for any remaining 

submissions that may be required for 

moderate nonattainment areas as a 

result of the Court’s decision regarding 

subpart 4. On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 

31566), EPA finalized the 

‘‘Identification of Nonattainment 

Classification and Deadlines for 

Submission of SIP Provisions for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS’’ rule (the PM2.5 Subpart 4 

Classification and Deadline Rule). The 

rule identifies the classification under 

subpart 4 for areas currently designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual and/ 

or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards and 

sets a new deadline for states to submit 

attainment-related and other SIP 

elements required for these areas 

pursuant to subpart 4. The rule also 

identifies EPA guidance that is currently 

available regarding subpart 4 

requirements. The PM2.5 Subpart 4 

Classification and Deadline Rule 

specifies December 31, 2014 as the 

deadline for the states to submit any 

additional attainment-related SIPelements that may be needed to meet 

the applicable requirements of subpart 4 

for areas currently designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual and/ 

or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and to 

submit SIPs addressing the 

nonattainment NSR requirements in 

subpart 4. Therefore, as explained in 

detail in the following section, any 

additional attainment-related SIP 

elements that may be needed for the 

Washington Area to meet the applicable 

requirements of subpart 4 were not due 

at the time that the District, Maryland, 

and Virginia submitted their 

redesignation requests for the 

Washington Area. The District, 

Maryland, and Virginia submitted their 

requests for redesignating the 

Washington Area for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS on June 3, 2013, July 10, 

2013, and June 3, 2013 respectively. 

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 the Washington Area’s 

redesignation requests. 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 

Washington 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 Washington Area redesignation 

requests and disregards the provisions 

of its 1997 annual PM2.5 implementation 

rule recently remanded by the D.C. 

Circuit Court, the States’ requests 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 45739 

2Applicable 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. 

a. Applicable Requirements Under 

Subpart 4 for Purposes of Evaluating the 

Washington Area’s Redesignation 

Requests 

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 States’ 

redesignation requests for the 

Washington 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 Washington 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. 

EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the redesignation of the 

Washington Area, the subpart 4 

requirements were not due at the time 

the States submitted the redesignation 

requests is in keeping with the EPA’s 

interpretation of subpart 2 requirements 

for subpart 1 ozone areas redesignated 

subsequent to the D.C. Circuit Court’s 

decision in South Coast Air Quality 

Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. 

Cir. 2006). In South Coast, the D.C. 

Circuit Court found that EPA was not 

permitted to implement the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard solely under subpart 1, 

and held that EPA was required under 

the statute to implement the standard 

under the ozone-specific requirements 

of subpart 2 as well. Subsequent to the 

South Coast decision, in evaluating and 

acting upon redesignation requests for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard that 

were submitted to EPA for areas under 

subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA that 

‘‘applicable requirements,’’ for purposes 

of evaluating a redesignation, are those 

that had been due at the time the 

redesignation request was submitted. 

See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of 

Manitowoc County and Door County 

Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 

22050, April 27, 2010). In those actions, 

EPA therefore did not consider subpart 

2 requirements to be ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of evaluating whether the 

area should be redesignated under 

section 107(d)(3)(E). 

EPA’s interpretation derives from the 

provisions of section 107(d)(3). Section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an area to 

be redesignated, a state must meet ‘‘all 

requirements ‘applicable’ to the area 

under section 110 and part D.’’ Section 

107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that the EPA 

must have fully approved the 

‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the area seeking 

redesignation. These two sections read 

together support EPA’s interpretation of 

‘‘applicable’’ as only those requirements 

that came due prior to submission of a 

complete redesignation request. First, 

holding states to an ongoing obligation 

to adopt new CAA requirements that 

arose after the state submitted its 

redesignation request, in order to be 

redesignated, would make it 

problematic or impossible for EPA to act 

on redesignation requests in accordance 

with the 18-month deadline Congress 

set for EPA action in section 

107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ were interpreted to be a 

continuing flow of requirements with no 

reasonable limitation, states, after 

submitting a redesignation request, 

would be forced continuously to make 

additional SIP submissions that in turn 

would require EPA to undertake further 

notice-and-comment rulemaking actions 

to act on those submissions. This would 

create a regime of unceasing rulemaking 

that would delay action on the 

redesignation request beyond the 18- 

month timeframe provided by the CAA 

for this purpose. 

Second, a fundamental premise for 

redesignating a nonattainment area to 

attainment is that the area has attained 

the relevant NAAQS due to emission 

reductions from existing controls. Thus, 

an area for which a redesignation 

request has been submitted would have 

already attained the NAAQS as a result 

of satisfying statutory requirements that 

came due prior to the submission of the 

request. Absent a showing that 

unadopted and unimplemented 

requirements are necessary for future 

maintenance, it is reasonable to view 

the requirements applicable for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request as including only those SIP 

requirements that have already come 

due. These are the requirements that led 

to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, 

for redesignation approval, that a state 

also satisfy additional SIP requirements 

coming due after the state submits its 

complete redesignation request, and 

while EPA is reviewing it, would 

compel the state to do more than is 

necessary to attain the NAAQS, without 

a showing that the additional 

requirements are necessary for 

maintenance. 

In the context of this redesignation, 

the timing and nature of the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s January 4, 2013 decision in 

NRDC v. EPA and EPA’s PM2.5 Subpart 

4 Nonattainment Classification and 

Deadline Rule compound the 

consequences of imposing requirements 

that come due after the redesignation 

requests are submitted. The States 

submitted their redesignation requests 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS on 

June 3, 2013 and July 10, 2013, which 

is prior to the deadline by which the 

Washington Area is required to meet the 

applicable requirements pursuant to 

subpart 4. 

To require the States’ fully-completed 

and pending redesignation requests 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 States a unique and earlier deadline 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45740 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3Sierra 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). 

4PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 

micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

5The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 

189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating these 

redesignation requests is discussed in this 

rulemaking action. 

6 I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, 

milestone requirements, contingency measures. 

for compliance solely on the basis of 

submitting their respective 

redesignation requests for the 

Washington 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. 

b. Subpart 4 Requirements and 

Washington Area’s 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 the States submitted their 

redesignation requests, EPA proposes to 

determine that the Washington Area 

still qualifies for redesignation to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard. As explained subsequently, 

EPA believes that the redesignation 

requests for the Washington Area, 

though not expressed in terms of 

subpart 4 requirements, substantively 

meets the requirements of that subpart 

for purposes of redesignating the Area to 

attainment. 

With respect to evaluating the 

relevant substantive requirements of 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the Washington Area, EPA notes that 

subpart 4 incorporates components of 

subpart 1, which contains general air 

quality planning requirements for areas 

designated as nonattainment. See 

section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains 

specific planning and scheduling 

requirements for coarse particulate 

matter (PM10) 4 nonattainment areas, 

and under the D.C. Circuit Court’s 

January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC. v. 

EPA, these same statutory requirements 

also apply for PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas. EPA has longstanding general 

guidance that interprets the 1990 

amendments to the CAA, making 

recommendations to states for meeting 

the statutory requirements for SIPs for 

nonattainment areas. See the General 

Preamble. In the General Preamble, EPA 

discussed the relationship of subpart 1 

and subpart 4 SIP requirements, and 

pointed out that subpart 1 requirements 

were to an extent ‘‘subsumed by, or 

integrally related to, the more specific 

PM10 requirements’’ (57 FR 13538, April 

16, 1992). The subpart 1 requirements 

include, among other things, provisions 

for attainment demonstrations, RACM, 

RFP, emissions inventories, and 

contingency measures. 

For the purposes of these 

redesignation requests, in order to 

identify any additional requirements 

which would apply under subpart 4, 

consistent with EPA’s April 25, 2014 

PM2.5 Subpart 4 Nonattainment 

Classification and Deadline Rule, EPA is 

considering the Washington Area to be 

a ‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

As EPA explained in its April 25, 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). 

With respect to the specific 

attainment planning requirements under 

subpart 4,6 when EPA evaluates a 

redesignation request under either 

subpart 1 or 4, any area that is attaining 

the PM2.5 standards is viewed as having 

satisfied the attainment planning 

requirements for these subparts. 

For redesignations, EPA has for many 

years interpreted attainment-linked 

requirements as not applicable for areas 

attaining the standard. In the General 

Preamble, EPA stated that, ‘‘The 

requirements for RFP will not apply in 

evaluating a request for redesignation to 

attainment since, at a minimum, the air 

quality data for the area must show that 

the area has already attained. Showing 

that the State will make RFP towards 

attainment will, therefore, have no 

meaning at that point.’’ 

The General Preamble also explained 

that, ‘‘[t]he section 172(c)(9) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 45741 

7As 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. 

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 States’ 

redesignation requests, those 

requirements do not apply to an area 

that is attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, for the purpose of evaluating a 

pending request to redesignate the area 

to attainment. EPA has consistently 

enunciated this interpretation of 

applicable requirements under section 

107(d)(3)(E) since the General Preamble 

was published more than twenty years 

ago. Courts have recognized the scope of 

EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ in the redesignation 

context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). 

Moreover, even outside the context of 

redesignations, EPA has viewed the 

obligations to submit attainment-related 

SIP planning requirements of subpart 4 

as inapplicable for areas that EPA 

determines are attaining the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard. EPA’s prior 

‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ rulemakings for the 

PM10 NAAQS, also governed by the 

requirements of subpart 4, explain 

EPA’s reasoning. They describe the 

effects of a determination of attainment 

on the attainment-related SIP planning 

requirements of subpart 4. See 

‘‘Determination of Attainment for Coso 

Junction Nonattainment Area,’’ (75 FR 

27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso 

Junction Proposed PM10 Redesignation, 

(75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010); 

Proposed and Final Determinations of 

Attainment for San Joaquin 

Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 

40954–55, July 19, 2006 and 71 FR 

63641, 63643–47, October 30, 2006). In 

short, EPA in this context has also long 

concluded that to require states to meet 

superfluous SIP planning requirements 

is not necessary and not required by the 

CAA, so long as those areas continue to 

attain the relevant NAAQS. 

Elsewhere in this notice, EPA 

proposes to determine that the 

Washington Area has attained and 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Under its longstanding 

interpretation, EPA is proposing to 

determine here that the Washington 

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 these 

redesignation requests. 

c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

The D.C. Circuit Court in NRDC v. 

EPA remanded to EPA the two rules at 

issue in the case with instructions to 

EPA to re-promulgate them consistent 

with the requirements of subpart 4. EPA 

in this section addresses the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s opinion with respect to PM2.5

precursors. While past implementation 

of subpart 4 for PM10 has allowed for 

control of PM10 precursors such as NOX

from major stationary, mobile, and area 

sources in order to attain the standard 

as expeditiously as practicable, section 

189(e) of the CAA specifically provides 

that control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10 shall 

also apply to PM10 precursors from 

those sources, except where EPA 

determines that major stationary sources 

of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels which 

exceed the standard in the area.’’ 

EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit 

Court, contained rebuttable 

presumptions concerning certain PM2.5

precursors applicable to attainment 

plans and control measures related to 

those plans. Specifically, in 40 CFR 

51.1002, EPA provided, among other 

things, that a state was ‘‘not required to 

address VOC [and ammonia] as . . . 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursor[s] and 

to evaluate sources of VOC [and 

ammonia] emissions in the State for 

control measures.’’ EPA intended these 

to be rebuttable presumptions. EPA 

established these presumptions at the 

time because of uncertainties regarding 

the emission inventories for these 

pollutants and the effectiveness of 

specific control measures in various 

regions of the country in reducing PM2.5

concentrations. EPA also left open the 

possibility for such regulation of VOC 

and ammonia in specific areas where 

that was necessary. 

The D.C. Circuit Court in its January 

4, 2013 decision made reference to both 

section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51. 1002, and 

stated that, ‘‘In light of our disposition, 

we need not address the petitioners’ 

challenge to the presumptions in [40 

CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic 

compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5

precursors, as subpart 4 expressly 

governs precursor presumptions.’’ 

NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10. Elsewhere in 

the D.C. Circuit Court’s opinion, 

however, the D.C. Circuit Court 

observed ‘‘Ammonia is a precursor to 

fine particulate matter, making it a 

precursor to both PM2.5 and PM10. For 

a PM10 nonattainment area governed by 

subpart 4, a precursor is presumptively 

regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 7513a(e) 

[section 189(e)].’’ Id. at 21, n.7. 

For a number of reasons, EPA believes 

that its proposed redesignation of the 

Washington 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 Washington Area, EPA 

believes that doing so is consistent with 

proposing redesignation of the Area for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. The 

Washington Area has attained the 1997 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45742 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8Under 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. 

9The Washington 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. 

10See, 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). 

11See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA 

et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005). 

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 Washington 

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 these redesignations. 

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 the States’ SIPs have 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 Washington 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 Washington 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. 

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 

States to address precursors differently 

than they have 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 Washington 

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 these 

redesignation requests, to consider 

additional precursors under subpart 4, it 

would not affect EPA’s approval here of 

the States’ requests for redesignation of 

the Washington Area for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In the context of 

a redesignation, the Area has shown that 

it has attained the standard. Moreover, 

the States have shown and EPA is 

proposing to determine that attainment 

of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 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 Washington 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 States were 

required to address precursors for the 

Washington 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 Washington Area had 

met all applicable requirements for 

purposes of redesignation in accordance 

with section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v). 

V. EPA’s Analysis of the States’ SIP 

Submittals 

EPA is proposing several rulemaking 

actions for the Washington Area: (1) To 

redesignate the Area to attainment for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) to 

approve into the District, Maryland and 

Virginia SIPs the associated 

maintenance plan for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS; and (3) to approve the 

2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs 

for the Washington Area for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

EPA’s proposed approvals of the 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

are based upon EPA’s determination 

that the Area continues to attain the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA 

is proposing in this rulemaking action, 

and that all other redesignation criteria 

have been met for the Washington Area. 

The following is a description of how 

the States’ submittals satisfy the 

requirements of sections 107(d)(3)(E) 

and 175A of the CAA for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

Washington Area. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 45743 

A. Requests for Redesignation 

1. Attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS 

EPA has previously determined that 

the Washington Area has attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. As noted 

earlier, on January 12, 2009 (74 FR 

1146), EPA determined that the entire 

Washington Area had attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard, based on 2004– 

2006 and 2005–2007 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 each of the States 

to submit for their jurisdiction of the 

Washington Area 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. 

Then, on January 10, 2012 (77 FR 1411), 

EPA determined, pursuant to section 

179(c), that the entire Washington Area 

had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS by its statutory attainment date 

of April 5, 2010. This determination was 

based on 2007–2009 quality-assured, 

quality-controlled, and certified ambient 

air quality monitoring data. The basis 

and effect of these determinations of 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS were discussed in the proposed 

(73 FR 62945, October 22, 2008 and 76 

FR 68378, November 4, 2011) and final 

rulemaking notices (74 FR 1146, January 

12, 2009 and 77 FR 1411, January 10, 

2012) for each action. 

The States’ redesignation request 

submittals included the historic 

monitoring data for the annual PM2.5

monitoring sites in the Washington 

Area. The historic monitoring data 

shows that the Washington Area has 

attained and continues to attain the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The States 

assure that all PM2.5 monitoring data for 

the Washington Area has been qualityassured, quality-controlled, and 

certified by the States 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 States and recorded in EPA’s Air 

Quality System (AQS). The PM2.5

quality-assured, quality-controlled, and 

state-certified 2008–2012 air quality 

data shows that the Washington Area 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The Area’s PM2.5 annual 

design values for the 2008–2010, 2009– 

2011, and 2010–2012 monitoring 

periods as well as preliminary data for 

2013 are provided in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—WASHINGTON AREA’S 2008–2012 ANNUAL DESIGN VALUES AND 2013 PRELIMINARY MONITORING DATA FOR

THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS 

Monitor site ID Location 

Annual design values Preliminary 2013 

data * 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 

11–001–0041 ...... Washington, DC .............................. 11.2 10.6 10.4 9.1 

11–001–0042 ...... Washington, DC .............................. 11.2 10.5 10.3 8.5 

11–001–0043 ...... Washington, DC .............................. 10.8 10.3 10.1 9.5 

24–031–3001 ...... Montgomery County, Maryland ...... 10.3 10.2 10.5 7.7 

24–033–0025 ...... Prince George’s County, Maryland 11.5 10.8 10.8 ** 

24–033–0030 ...... Prince George’s County, Maryland 10.0 10.8 10.8 8.8 

24–033–8003 ...... Prince George’s County, Maryland 9.9 9.1 8.8 8.1 

51–013–0020 ...... Arlington County, Virginia ............... 10.8 10.1 9.9 8.7 

51–059–0030 ...... Fairfax County, Virginia .................. 10.3 9.6 9.3 8.1 

51–107–1005 ...... Loudoun County, Virginia ............... 10.3 9.5 9.5 8.3 

Source: EPA AQS Preliminary Design Value Reports (AMP480) dated March 18, 2014, available in the docket for this rulemaking action. 

Notes: * Corresponds to quality-assured, quality-controlled available monitoring data up to date for 2013. ** Monitoring site 24–033–0025 in 

Bladensburg, Maryland was permanently shutdown on December 30, 2011. 

The Washington 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 

Washington Area’s maintenance plan, 

the States have committed to continue 

monitoring ambient PM2.5

concentrations in accordance with 40 

CFR part 58. Thus, EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Washington Area 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

2. The States Have Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D of the CAA and Have Fully 

Approved SIPs Under Section 110(k) for 

the Washington Area 

In accordance with section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA, the SIP for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard for each 

of the jurisdictions of the Washington 

Area must be fully approved under 

section 110(k) and all the requirements 

applicable to 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) include, but are not limited to 

the following: (1) A SIP submittal 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 for various 

NAAQS, EPA has required certain states 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45744 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

to establish programs to address 

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) 

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 not 

connected with nonattainment plan 

submissions and not linked with an 

area’s attainment status are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The Washington Area 

will still be subject to these 

requirements after it is redesignated. 

EPA concludes that the section 110(a)(2) 

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 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 at 

37890, June 19, 2000), and in the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania 

redesignation (66 FR at 53099, October 

19, 2001). 

EPA has reviewed the States’ SIPs and 

has concluded that they all meet 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 the States’ SIPs 

addressing section 110(a)(2) 

requirements, including provisions 

addressing PM2.5. See (76 FR 20237, 

April 4, 2011 for the District; 76 FR 

62635, October 11, 2011 for Virginia; 

and 76 FR 72624, November 25, 2011 

for Maryland). These requirements are, 

however, statewide requirements that 

are not linked to the PM2.5

nonattainment status of the Washington 

Area. Therefore, EPA believes that these 

SIP elements are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of reviewing 

the States’ redesignation requests for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

Washington Area. 

b. Subpart 1 Requirements 

Subpart 1 sets forth the basic 

nonattainment plan requirements 

applicable to PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

Under section 172, states with 

nonattainment areas must submit plans 

providing for timely attainment and 

must meet a variety of other 

requirements. The General Preamble 

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). 

On April 3, 2008, April 4, 2008, and 

April 8, 2008, Maryland, the District, 

and Virginia, respectively, submitted 

separately an attainment plan for their 

respective portions of the Washington 

Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As noted previously, on January 12, 

2009 (74 FR 1146), EPA determined that 

the entire Washington Area had attained 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, based 

on 2004–2006 and 2005–2007 qualityassured, quality-controlled, and 

certified ambient air quality monitoring 

data. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.2004(c), 

upon EPA’s clean data determination for 

the Area, the requirements for each of 

the States to submit for their jurisdiction 

of the Washington Area 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 were suspended until the Area 

is redesignated to attainment for the 

standard or EPA determines that the 

Area has again violated any of the 

standards, at which time such plans are 

required to be submitted. Thus, because 

attainment has been reached for the 

Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

and the Area continues to attain the 

standard, no additional measures are 

needed to provide for attainment. 

Therefore, the requirements of section 

172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), 172(c)(6), and 

172(c)(9) are no longer considered to be 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

of the Washington Area for this 

standard. 

The requirement under section 

172(c)(3) for each State was not 

suspended by EPA’s clean data 

determination for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS for the Washington Area. 

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

submission of a comprehensive, 

accurate, and current inventory of actual 

emissions. For purposes of the PM2.5

NAAQS, this emissions inventory 

should address not only direct 

emissions of PM2.5, but also emissions of 

all precursors with the potential to 

participate in PM2.5 formation, i.e., SO2, 

NOX, VOC, and ammonia. In October 

2012, EPA approved in separate 

rulemaking actions the 2002 emissions 

inventories submitted by the States with 

each of the attainment plans for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS to satisfy the 

requirements of section 172(c)(3) for the 

Washington Area. See (77 FR 60626, 

October 4, 2012 for Virginia; 77 FR 

61513, October 10, 2012 for Maryland; 

and 77 FR 65630, October 30, 2012 for 

the District). The 2002 comprehensive 

emissions inventories for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard submitted by the 

States with their respective attainment 

plans for the Washington Area included 

emissions estimates that cover the 

general source categories of point 

sources, area sources, onroad mobile 

sources, and nonroad mobile sources for 

each of the jurisdictions in the Area. 

The pollutants that comprise the States’ 

2002 emissions inventories for the Area 

are PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC, and 

ammonia. An evaluation for each 

submittal of the States’ 2002 

comprehensive emissions inventories 

for the Washington Area is provided in 

the Technical Support Documents 

(TSDs) prepared by EPA for the separate 

rulemaking actions. See Docket ID No. 

EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0152 (District), 

EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0140 (Maryland), 

and EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0151 

(Virginia). 

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) 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 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 45745 

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 and Virginia have SIPapproved PSD programs in place which 

will regulate major new and modified 

stationary sources of PM2.5 in the 

Washington Area. See (77 FR 45949, 

August 2, 2012, for Maryland and 79 FR 

10377, February 25, 2014, for Virginia). 

Maryland and Virginia’s PSD programs 

for PM2.5 will become effective in the 

Washington Area upon redesignation to 

attainment. The District lacks a SIPapproved PSD program; however it is 

subject to a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) which incorporates EPA’s 

PSD permitting requirements of 40 CFR 

51.21 into the District’s SIP. See 40 CFR 

52.499. 

Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires 

the SIP to meet the applicable 

provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted 

previously, EPA finds the States’ SIPs 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2) that are applicable for 

purposes of redesignation. 

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.’’ In conjunction with the 

redesignation requests for the 

Washington Area, the States submitted 

a common maintenance plan to show 

continued attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Washington 

Area for at least 10 years after 

redesignation, throughout 2025. The 

States are requesting that EPA approve 

this plan as a revision to each of their 

SIPs to meet the requirement of CAA 

section 175A. Once approved, the 

Washington Area’s maintenance plan 

will ensure that the States SIPs meet the 

requirements of the CAA regarding 

maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS for the Area. EPA’s analysis of 

the maintenance plan is provided in 

section V.B. of this rulemaking action. 

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 that are 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 a redesignation 

request under CAA section 107(d) 

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) 

and (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995) 

(discussing Tampa, Florida). Thus, for 

purposes of redesignating to attainment 

the Washington Area for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA determines 

that the States have met all the 

applicable SIP requirements under part 

D of Title I of the CAA. 

c. The States Have Fully Approved 

Applicable SIPs Under Section 110(k) of 

the CAA 

For purposes of redesignation to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA has fully approved all 

applicable requirements of the States 

SIPs for the Washington Area 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) 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. In making this 

demonstration, the States have 

considered changes in emissions 

between 2002, a year showing 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard in the Washington Area, 

and 2007, one of the years for which the 

Washington Area monitored attainment 

for the standard. A summary of the 

emissions reductions for PM2.5, NOX, 

SO2, VOC, and ammonia from 2002 to 

2007 for the Washington Area is 

provided in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF 2002 NONATTAINMENT YEAR AND 2007 ATTAINMENT YEAR EMISSIONS INVENTORIES FOR THE

WASHINGTON AREA, IN TONS PER YEAR (TPY) 

Location Year 

Emissions (tpy) 

PM2.5 SO2 NOX VOC Ammonia 

District portion ................................... 2002 ..................... 1,077 3,597 15,401 15,877 407 

2007 ..................... 1,691 2,156 13,148 1,508 381 

Changes ............... 614 ¥1,441 ¥2,253 ¥14,369 ¥26 

Maryland portion ............................... 2002 ..................... 12,825 169,789 109,041 98,626 5,174 

2007 ..................... 12,088 178,827 91,272 11,397 4,021 

Changes ............... ¥737 9,038 ¥17,769 ¥87,229 ¥1,153 

Virginia portion .................................. 2002 ..................... 8,277 49,975 75,910 92,725 2,371 

2007 ..................... 6,944 10,457 60,826 12,153 1,802 

Changes ............... ¥1,333 ¥39,518 ¥15,084 ¥80,572 ¥569 

Washington Area ............................... 2002 ..................... 22,179 235,165 188,548 207,228 7,952 

2007 ..................... 20,724 191,441 165,247 25,058 6,204 

Changes ............... ¥1,455 ¥43,724 ¥23,301 ¥182,170 ¥1,748 

As explained earlier, the States 

submitted their 2002 emissions 

inventories with their respective 

attainment plans for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA approved in 

their SIPs to satisfy the requirement of 

section 172(c)(3) for the Washington 

Area. See (77 FR 60626, October 4, 2012 

for Virginia; 77 FR 61513, October 10, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45746 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2012 for Maryland; and 77 FR 65630, 

October 30, 2012 for the District). An 

evaluation for each submittal of the 

States’ 2002 comprehensive emissions 

inventories for the Washington Area is 

provided in the Technical Support 

Documents (TSDs) prepared by EPA for 

the separate rulemaking actions. See 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2010– 

0152 (District), EPA–R03–OAR–2010– 

0140 (Maryland), and EPA–R03–OAR– 

2010–0151 (Virginia). The 2007 

emissions inventories were provided as 

part of the States’ redesignation requests 

and maintenance plan submittals, and 

then were supplemented by the States to 

include emissions estimates of ammonia 

and VOC. EPA has evaluated the 2007 

emissions inventories as part of this 

rulemaking action. EPA’s analysis of the 

2007 emissions inventories is provided 

in the TSD dated March 17, 2014, 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking action at 

www.regulations.gov. 

The reduction in emissions and the 

corresponding improvement in air 

quality from 2002 to 2007 in the 

Washington Area can be attributed to a 

number of State and Federal control 

measures that have been implemented 

by the States in recent years. Point 

source emissions of PM2.5, SO2, and 

NOX are dominated in the Washington 

Area by the emissions from power 

plants (i.e., stationary sources 

containing electric generating units 

(EGUs)). There are six power plants 

located in the Washington Area: (1) The 

Possum Point Power Station in Fairfax, 

Virginia; (2) the Potomac River Power 

Station in Alexandria, Virginia; (3) the 

Chalk Point Generating Plant, in Prince 

George’s County, Maryland; (4) the 

Dickerson Generating Plant, in 

Montgomery County, Maryland; (5) the 

Morgantown Generating Plant, in 

Charles County, Maryland; and (6) the 

Benning Road Generating Station in the 

District. 

Significant improvement in the 

Washington Area’s air quality is due to 

permanent emissions reductions 

resulting from EGUs as a result of two 

Federal consent orders. A Federal 

consent decree with the Virginia 

Electric and Power Company (VEPCO), 

signed on April 17, 2003, required two 

boilers (units 3 and 4) in the Possum 

Point Power Station in Fairfax, Virginia 

to switch from burning coal to natural 

gas and to limit their combined 

emissions of NOX by May 2003. The 

consent decree established a combined 

emissions limit of 219 tons of NOX in 

any 365 days, rolled daily. The required 

control measures resulted in significant 

emissions reductions of NOX and SO2, 

as summarized in Table 3. This 

requirement was codified in a Federally 

enforceable permit issued by VADEQ on 

October 5, 2001, under the SIPapproved provisions of Article 8 and 9 

of 9VAC5 Chapter 80 (Permits for 

Stationary Sources). 

TABLE 3—REDUCTIONS OF NOX AND SO2 EMISSIONS FROM 2002 TO 2007 IN THE POSSUM POINT POWER STATION

Unit ID 

2002 Emissions (tpy) 2007 Emissions (tpy) Emissions reductions (%) 

SO2 NOX SO2 NOX SO2 NOX

3 ....................................................................................... 6,228 1,582 0 39 100 97.53 

4 ....................................................................................... 10,975 2,349 1 111 99.99 95.27 

Total .......................................................................... 17,203 3,931 1 150 99.99 96.18 

Additionally, in a joint Federal-State 

consent order, Mirant Mid-Atlantic 

agreed to significantly reduce emissions 

in four of the power plants located in 

the Washington Area: Chalk Point 

Generating Plant, Dickerson Generating 

Plant, Morgantown Generating Plant, 

and Potomac River Generating Station. 

Reductions of NOX emissions resulting 

from the consent decree are summarized 

in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—REDUCTIONS OF NOX EMISSIONS FROM 2002 TO 2007 IN THE MIRANT MID-ATLANTIC FACILITIES IN THE

WASHINGTON AREA

Facility Unit ID 

2002 NOX Emissions 2007 NOX Emissions Emissions 

reduction 

Pounds per 

million British thermal 

units (lbs/

MMBTU) 

tpy lbs/MMBTU tpy Percentage 

(%) 

Chalk Point ....................................................................... 1 0.562 6,337 0.446 4,885 22.9 

2 0.560 6,755 0.450 4,835 28.4 

3 0.156 846 0.136 538 36.4 

4 0.169 1,169 0.128 426 63.6 

Dickerson ......................................................................... 1 0.466 2,121 0.343 1,645 22.5 

2 0.498 2,444 0.334 1,644 32.7 

3 0.471 2,661 0.338 1,658 37.7 

Morgantown ..................................................................... 1 0.504 10,014 0.191 3,097 69.0 

2 0.501 8,605 0.360 6,321 26.5 

Potomac River ................................................................. 1 0.379 759 0.326 483 36.3 

2 0.416 789 0.287 444 43.7 

3 0.418 1,545 0.254 412 73.4 

4 0.415 1,443 0.234 481 66.6 

5 0.398 1,474 0.245 516 65.0 

Total .......................................................................... .................... .................... 46,962 .................... 27,386 42.7 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 45747 

Additionally, a variety of Federal 

vehicle control programs have 

contributed to reduced onroad 

emissions of PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 in the 

Washington Area between 2002 and 

2007. EPA’s Federal Tier 1 New Vehicle 

Emission and New Federal Evaporative 

Emission Standards Rule established 

motor vehicle emission standards, 

which were phased in beginning with 

model year 1994. See 40 CFR 86, 

subpart A. The benefits of this program 

are reflected in the 2002 base year and 

the 2007 attainment year emissions 

inventories. This Federally 

implemented program affects light duty 

vehicles and light duty trucks. The 

regulations require more stringent 

exhaust emission standards as well as a 

uniform level of evaporative emission 

controls. 

Under the National Low Emission 

Vehicle Program, automobile 

manufacturers agreed to comply with 

tailpipe standards that were more 

stringent than EPA could mandate prior 

to model year 2004. See 40 CFR 86, 

subpart R. The program was in place 

nationwide for model year 2001, and the 

benefits of this program are reflected in 

the 2002 base year and the 2007 

attainment year emissions inventories. 

The Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emission 

Rule was promulgated by EPA on 

February 10, 2000 (65 FR 6698) and 

requires more stringent tailpipe 

emissions standards for all passenger 

vehicles, including sport utility 

vehicles, minivans, vans, and pick-up 

trucks. This rule also requires lower 

levels of sulfur in gasoline, which 

ensured the effectiveness of low 

emission control technologies in 

vehicles and reduced harmful air 

pollution. The tailpipe standards 

required passenger vehicles to be 77 to 

95 percent cleaner than those built 

before the rule was promulgated and the 

sulfur standards reduced the sulfur 

content of gasoline up to 90 percent by 

2006. The benefits of this program are 

reflected in the 2007 attainment year 

emissions inventory. 

The Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Rules 

are Federal rules that required truck 

manufacturers to comply with more 

stringent tailpipe standards by 2004 (65 

FR 59896, October 6, 2000) and 2007 (66 

FR 5002, January 18, 2001). The 2007 

rule also mandated use of ultra-low 

sulfur diesel fuel to enable modern 

pollution control technology on trucks 

and buses. Refineries began producing 

the cleaner-burning diesel fuel for use in 

highway vehicles beginning June 1, 

2006. The benefits of this program are 

reflected in the 2007 attainment year 

emissions inventory. 

The States have implemented 

enhanced vehicle emissions inspection 

and maintenance (enhanced I/M) 

programs. See 64 FR 31498 (June 11, 

1999) for the District; 64 FR 58340, 

(October 29, 1999) for Maryland; and 64 

FR 47670 (September 1, 1999) for 

Virginia. These regional I/M programs 

are stricter than the basic programs, as 

required under sections 182 and 202 of 

the CAA. Enhanced I/M procedures 

include the use of On Board Diagnostic 

(OBD) system evaluations, a wider range 

of vehicles tested, and may include a 

dynamometer (treadmill) test that 

checks the car’s emissions under driving 

conditions. The benefits of these I/M 

programs are reflected in the 2002 base 

year and the 2007 attainment year 

emissions inventories. 

The reductions in emissions from the 

onroad sector between 2002 and 2007 

are presented in Table 5. These 

emissions estimates were derived using 

the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator 

(MOVES2010a) and the most recent 

planning assumptions as provided by 

the Metropolitan Washington Council of 

Governments, Transportation Planning 

Board (MWCOG/TBP). 

TABLE 5—CHANGES IN ONROAD MOBILE EMISSIONS OF DIRECT PM2.5 AND PRECURSORS FROM 2002 TO 2007 IN THE

WASHINGTON AREA, IN TPY

Location Year 

Emissions (tpy) 

PM2.5 SO2 NOX VOC Ammonia 

District portion ......... 2002 ................. 156 376 8,827 4,913 383 

2007 ................. 272 68 7,512 3,362 195 

Changes ........... 116 ¥308 ¥1315 ¥1551 ¥188 

Maryland portion ..... 2002 ................. 841 894 47,640 20,495 2,035 

2007 ................. 1,757 319 47,279 18,449 929 

Changes ........... 916 ¥575 ¥361 ¥2,046 ¥1,106 

Virginia portion ........ 2002 ................. 727 1,562 41,108 18,496 1,827 

2007 ................. 1,422 220 36,848 15,703 777 

Changes ........... 695 ¥1,342 ¥4,260 ¥2,793 ¥1,050 

Washington Area ..... 2002 ................. 1,725 2,833 97,575 43,904 4,246 

2007 ................. 3,452 607 91,639 37,514 1,901 

Changes ........... 1,727 ¥2,226 ¥5,936 ¥2,345 ¥2,345 

EPA believes that the States have 

adequately demonstrated that the 

observed air quality improvement in the 

Washington Area is due to permanent 

and enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of 

Federal and State-adopted measures. 

B. Maintenance Plan 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, the States submitted a common 

maintenance plan as a revision to their 

respective SIPs to ensure continued 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard in the Washington Area 

throughout 2025. The Washington 

Area’s maintenance plan for the1997 

annual PM2.5 standard was submitted to 

the EPA by DDOE on June 3, 2013, by 

MDE on July 10, 2013, and by VADEQ 

on June 3, 2013. As part of the 

maintenance demonstration the SIP 

revision includes a 2007 attainment 

emissions inventory, a 2017 interim 

emissions inventory, and a 2025 end 

year maintenance plan emissions 

inventory. The emissions inventories 

were subsequently supplemented by the 

States to provide for emissions estimates 

of VOC and ammonia as part of the 

2007, 2017 and 2025 emissions 

inventories. The supplemental 

inventories were submitted to EPA on 

July 22, 2013 by DDOE, on July 26, 2013 

by MDE, and on July 17, 2013 by 

VADEQ. EPA’s analysis for proposing 

approval of the Washington Area’s 

maintenance plan is provided in this 

section. 

1. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

An attainment inventory is comprised 

of the emissions during the time period 

associated with the monitoring data 

showing attainment. The States 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45748 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

determined that the appropriate 

attainment inventory year for the 

maintenance plan is 2007, one of the 

years in the period during which the 

Area monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2007 

attainment emissions inventory contains 

primary PM2.5 emissions (including 

condensables), SO2, NOX, VOC, and 

ammonia for point, area, nonroad, and 

onroad source categories. 

For the emissions estimates of the 

point, area, and nonroad categories of 

the 2007 attainment emissions 

inventory, the States submitted version 

3 of the 2007 emissions inventory 

developed through the Mid-Atlantic 

Regional Air Management Association 

(MARAMA) regional process. The 2007 

onroad source estimates were developed 

by MWCOG/TBP using EPA’s MOVES 

2010a model. More information on the 

development of the onroad emissions 

can be found on the States’ TSD 

submitted as part of their redesignation 

request submittals. 

EPA has reviewed the inventory and 

the documentation provided by the 

States and found the 2007 attainment 

emissions inventory submitted with the 

Washington Area’s maintenance plan to 

be approvable. For more information on 

EPA’s analysis of the 2007 emissions 

inventory, see EPA’s TSD dated March 

17, 2014, available in the docket for this 

rulemaking action at 

www.regulations.gov. 

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 demonstration need not be 

based on modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 

supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See 

also 66 FR 53099–53100 and 68 FR 

25430–32. The States use projection 

inventories to show that the Washington 

Area will remain in attainment and 

developed projection inventories for an 

interim year of 2017 and a maintenance 

plan end year of 2025 to show that 

future emissions of NOX, SO2, and direct 

PM2.5 will remain at or below the 

attainment year 2007 emissions levels 

throughout the Area through the year 

2025. 

The States used the 2017 and 2025 

emissions projections developed 

through the MARAMA regional 

planning process as the 2017 interim 

year and the 2025 maintenance plan end 

year emissions inventories. For more 

details on emissions projections, 

methodologies, and growth, see 

MARAMA’s ‘‘Technical Support 

Document for the Development of the 

2013/2017/2020 Emission Inventories 

for Regional Air Quality Modeling in the 

Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Region’’ 

(MARAMA 2017 TSD) and the 

‘‘Technical Support Document for the 

Development of the 2025 Emission 

Inventory for PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Counties in the MANE–VU Region, 

January 2012’’ (MARAMA 2025 TSD), 

respectively, which were included in 

the States submittals and are available 

in the docket for this rulemaking action 

at www.regulations.gov. After reviewing 

the supporting documentation provided 

for developing the projected emissions 

inventories, EPA has determined that 

the 2017 and 2025 emissions 

inventories for the Washington Area are 

approvable. 

A summary of the emissions 

inventories for the Washington Area for 

the 2007 attainment year, the 2017 

interim year, and the 2025 maintenance 

plan end year is provided in Table 6. 

The inventories show that, between 

2007 and 2025, the Area is projected to 

reduce SO2 emissions by 155,071 tpy, 

NOX emissions by 14,811 tpy, VOC 

emissions by 29,473 tpy, and ammonia 

emissions by 534 tpy. Thus, the 

emissions inventories show that the 

Washington Area will continue to 

maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5

standards during the maintenance 

period. 

TABLE 6—COMPARISON OF 2007 ATTAINMENT YEAR AND 2017 AND 2025 PROJECTED EMISSIONS INVENTORIES FOR THE

WASHINGTON AREA, IN TPY

Pollutants/Year 2007 2017 2025 Reductions 

2007–2017 

Reductions 

2007–2025 

PM2.5 ...................................................... 20,724 18,654 18,010 ¥2,070 ¥2,714 

SO2 ........................................................ 191,441 33,315 33,287 ¥158,125 ¥158,153 

NOX ........................................................ 165,247 90,799 74,504 ¥74,448 ¥90,743 

VOC ....................................................... 114,235 92,592 84,762 ¥21,643 ¥29,473 

Ammonia ................................................ 6,204 5,922 5,670 ¥282 ¥534 

Point, nonroad, and onroad emission 

projections for 2017 and 2025 include a 

variety of control strategies that will 

reduce emissions of PM2.5, NOX, and 

SO2 in the Area. Many of these 

programs are Federal programs that are 

enforced on a regional or national level. 

In cases where the programs are 

delegated programs or State programs, 

the States commit to the continuation of 

each program to ensure that reductions 

assumed in 2017 and 2025 will be 

achieved. 

As explained earlier, EGUs are the 

primary point sources of PM2.5, SO2, and 

NOX emissions in the Washington Area. 

The States have implemented various 

Federally-enforceable measures in the 

Washington Area to reduce emissions 

from EGUs. The VEPCO Federal consent 

decree has reduced significantly 

emissions of NOX and SO2 at the 

Possum Point Power Station, in Fairfax 

County, Virginia. The fuel switch from 

coal to natural gas required by the 

consent decree was made in the 2003– 

2004 timeframe. Two other permitting 

actions affected the emissions of SO2

and NOX from the Potomac River Power 

Station, in Alexandria, Virginia. The 

first was a state operating permit issued 

on July 31, 2008 by Virginia’s Air 

Pollution Control Board limiting the 

facility’s primary PM2.5 emissions to 207 

tpy, the SO2 emissions to 3,813 tpy, and 

the NOX emissions to 3,700 tpy. On July 

29, 2010, a second state operating 

permit was issued, further limiting the 

facility to 890 tons of NOX per ozone 

season (May 1 through September 30). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 45749 

The Maryland Healthy Air Act (HAA) 

regulations became effective on July 16, 

2007 and were approved by EPA into 

the Maryland SIP on September 4, 2008 

(73 FR 51599). The HAA requires 

reductions in NOX and SO2 emissions 

from large coal burning power plants in 

Maryland. Specifically, this program 

limits emissions from the Chalk Point 

Generating Plant, the Dickerson 

Generating Plant, and the Morgantown 

Generating Plant, all of which are coal 

fired power plants located within the 

Maryland portion of the Washington 

Area. Emission reductions from the 

HAA are phased: The first phase 

required reductions in the 2009–2010 

timeframe and the second phase 

required controls by 2012–2013. At full 

implementation, the HAA was projected 

to reduce NOX emissions by 

approximately 75 percent from 2002 

levels and SO2 emissions by 

approximately 85 percent from 2002 

levels. 

As a condition of an operating permit, 

two EGUs in the Pepco Energy Services, 

Inc. located within the Area 

permanently ceased operation by 

December 17, 2012. The permit 

condition became Federally enforceable 

as part of a SIP revision that was 

approved by EPA on February 2, 2012 

(77 FR 5191). Closure of the two large, 

uncontrolled oil-fired turbines will 

result in SO2 and NOX reductions. 

Additional Federal and State measures 

have been implemented in the Area to 

reduce emissions from the mobile 

source sector, including: EPA’s Nonroad 

Diesel Rule, EPA’s 2007 Heavy-duty 

Highway Rule, EPA’s Tier 1 Federal 

Motor Vehicle Emission Standards, 

EPA’s Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline 

Sulfur Program, and States’ enhanced 

vehicle emissions I/M programs. 

3. Monitoring Network 

The District, Maryland, and Virginia 

operate a PM2.5 air quality monitoring 

network in the Washington Area that is 

significantly more robust than required 

by EPA’s monitoring regulations in 40 

CFR part 58. Furthermore, the 

Washington Area’s maintenance plan 

includes the States’ 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 

accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 58, the States will consult with 

EPA prior to making any necessary 

changes to the PM2.5 monitoring 

network in the Area and will continue 

to submit quality-controlled, qualityassured monitoring data. 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

The States have the legal authority to 

implement and enforce specified 

measures to attain and implement the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, as required 

by section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. The 

States commit to continue 

implementing the necessary control 

measures that will assure maintenance 

of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

throughout the 10 year period following 

redesignation. Additionally, each of the 

States will acquire ambient and source 

emission data to track attainment and 

maintenance. As explained 

subsequently, as a contingency measure 

the States will track progress of the 

maintenance demonstration by 

periodically evaluating the projected 

emission inventories, based on annual 

and periodic inventories. See section 

V.B.5 of this proposed rulemaking 

action. Furthermore, the States will 

prepare and submit to EPA every three 

years a comprehensive PM2.5 emissions 

inventory, as required by EPA’s Air 

Emissions Reporting Requirements 

(AERR). 

5. Contingency Measures 

Section 175A of the CAA requires that 

a maintenance plan include such 

contingency measures as EPA deems 

necessary to ensure that the States will 

promptly correct a violation of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS that occurs in the 

Washington Area 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). 

The Washington Area maintenance 

plan outlines the procedures for the 

adoption and implementation of 

contingency measures that will further 

reduce emissions in the Area, should a 

violation of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS occur. The States’ contingency 

measures will be implemented if any of 

the following triggering events occur: 

The total actual annual emissions of 

NOX, SO2 or primary PM2.5 exceed the 

levels of the 2007 attainment year 

emissions inventory; an exceedance of 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, that is, 

an annual average for one year at any 

EPA-approved monitor in the Area of 

15.0 mg/m3 or greater; or a violation of 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, that is, 

a 3-year average of the annual average 

at any EPA-approved monitor in the 

Area of 15.0 mg/m3 or greater. 

Should actual emissions inventory 

data for any future year of the 

maintenance period indicate that the 

Washington Area’s total emissions of 

NOX, SO2, or primary PM2.5 exceed the 

levels of the Area’s 2007 attainment 

emissions inventory, the States would 

commence an audit to determine 

whether inventory refinements are 

needed. This audit may include, but 

would not be limited to, a determination 

that the appropriate models, control 

strategies, monitoring strategies, 

planning assumptions, industrial 

throughput, and production data were 

used in the emissions estimates for both 

the 2007 attainment year and the future 

year in question. The results of this 

audit will be provided to EPA. If the 

States find that this audit does not 

reconcile the estimated emissions 

exceedances, then each of the States 

commit to implement one or more of the 

contingency measures, as necessary so 

that the future actual emissions 

estimates for the Washington Area do 

not continue to exceed the levels of the 

2007 attainment emissions inventory. 

Additionally, if an annual exceedance 

of the standard occurs in the Area, each 

of the States commit to implementing 

one of the contingency measures, as 

described subsequently, which apply to 

their individual jurisdictions, to garner 

additional emission reductions for air 

quality improvement. If a violation of 

the standard occurs in the Area, each of 

the States commit to implementing two 

or more of the contingency measures. 

The States’ contingency measures 

consist of the following state regulations 

or control programs: PM2.5 RACM 

determination, NOX RACM 

determination, SO2 RACM 

determination (for the District and 

Virginia portions of the Area), nonroad 

diesel emission reduction strategies, low 

sulfur home heating oil requirements 

(for the District and Maryland portions 

of the Area), alternative fuel and diesel 

retrofit programs for fleet vehicle 

operations, and wet suppression 

upgrade requirements in concrete 

manufacturing. If a RACM 

determination is selected as a 

contingency measure and the analysis 

shows that no control measures are 

economically and technically feasible, 

then the State would consider an 

alternative contingency measure from 

the options listed. 

The States commit to a schedule for 

adoption and implementation of any 

contingency measure following three 

months from when an exceedance or 

violation of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard is determined, based on the air 

quality assured data; or an exceedance 

of actual emissions from the levels of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45750 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the 2007 attainment emissions 

inventory is determined, as concluded 

by an audit. After this 3-month period, 

the selected contingency measure must 

be adopted by the State within six 

months, and implemented within six 

months of adoption. Compliance with 

the regulation, or full program 

implementation, must be achieved 

within 12 months of adoption. 

C. Transportation Conformity 

Determinations 

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. 

The Washington Area’s maintenance 

plan includes MVEBs for PM2.5 and NOX

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

MVEBs were submitted for the years 

2017 and 2025 for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, consistent with the emissions 

inventories in the Washington Area. The 

combined maintenance plan did not 

provide emission budgets for SO2, VOC, 

and ammonia 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 

Washington Area. 

The Washington Area maintenance 

plan includes a tiered approach for 

MVEBs to be applied to all future 

transportation conformity 

determinations and analyses for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Shown in 

Table 7 and Table 8 are the MVEBs from 

the Washington Area maintenance plan. 

The Tier 1 MVEBs shown in Table 7 

will be the applicable MVEBs after the 

adequacy findings are effective. The 

Tier 2 MVEBs shown in Table 8 adds a 

twenty percent (20%) transportation 

buffer to the mobile emissions inventory 

projections for PM2.5 and NOX in 2017 

and 2025. The Tier 2 MVEBs will 

become effective if it is determined that 

technical uncertainties primarily due to 

model changes and to vehicle fleet 

turnover, which may affect future motor 

vehicle emissions inventories, lead to 

motor vehicle emissions estimates above 

the Tier 1 MVEBs. This determination 

will be made through the interagency 

consultation process and fully 

documented within the first conformity 

analysis that uses the Tier 2 MVEBs. 

TABLE 7—TIER 1 ON-ROAD MVEBS FOR THE WASHINGTON AREA FOR THE 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Year MVEB for PM2.5 on-road emissions 

(tpy) 

MVEB for NOX on-road emissions 

(tpy) 

2017 ...... 1,787 41,709 

2025 ...... 1,350 27,400 

TABLE 8—TIER 2 ON-ROAD MVEBS FOR THE WASHINGTON AREA FOR THE 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Year MVEB for PM2.5 on-road emissions 

(tpy) 

MVEB for NOX on-road Emissions 

(tpy) 

2017 ...... 2,144 50,051 

2025 ...... 1,586 32,880 

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 revision, in this case the 

Washington Area maintenance plan, 

and conclude that with the projected 

level of motor vehicle and all other 

emissions, the SIP revision 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 5, 2013, EPA initiated an 

adequacy review of the MVEBs for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS that the 

Maryland, Virginia, and the District 

included in their maintenance plan 

submittals. As such, separate notices of 

the submission of these MVEBs were 

posted on the adequacy Web site (http:// 

epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/

currsips.htm). The public comment 

period closed on March 7, 2014. There 

were no public comments received. EPA 

is acting on making these adequacy 

findings final through separate notices 

of adequacy. EPA has reviewed the 

MVEBs and found them consistent with 

the redesignation requests and 

maintenance plans and that the budgets 

meet the criteria for adequacy and 

approval. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to approve the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and 

NOX MVEBs for the Washington Area 

for transportation conformity purposes. 

Additional information pertaining to the 

review of the MVEBs can be found in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 45751 

EPA’s TSD dated February 11, 2014, 

available on line at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. 

EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0148. 

VI. 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 § 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. 

VII. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

requests submitted by the District of 

Columbia, the Commonwealth of 

Virginia, and the State of Maryland to 

redesignate from nonattainment to 

attainment their respective portions of 

the Washington Area for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has 

evaluated the States’ redesignation 

requests and determined that they meet 

the redesignation criteria set forth in 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard. EPA 

believes that the monitoring data 

demonstrate that the Washington Area 

is attaining and will continue to attain 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

also proposing to approve the common 

maintenance plan for the Washington 

Area submitted by the States as 

revisions to their respective SIPs for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard because the 

plan meets the requirements of CAA 

section 175A for the standard. 

Furthermore, EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and 

NOX MVEBs submitted by the 

Washington Area for transportation 

conformity purposes. Final approval of 

the redesignation requests would 

change the official designations of the 

Washington Area, from nonattainment 

to attainment as found at 40 CFR part 

81, for each of the States for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and would 

incorporate into the States SIPs the 

maintenance plan ensuring continued 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS in the Area for the next 10 

years, until 2025. EPA is soliciting 

public comments on the issues 

discussed in this document. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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 

status of geographical area 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 proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law and 

the CAA. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45752 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rulemaking 

action, in which EPA is proposing 

approval of the redesignation requests 

and maintenance plan submitted by the 

District of Columbia, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, and the 

State of Maryland for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 Washington Area, 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, 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: July 17, 2014. 

William C. Early, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18482 Filed 8–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 27 

[GN Docket No. 13–185; Report No. 3005] 

Petitions for Reconsideration of Action 

in Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: Petitions for Reconsideration 

(Petitions) have been filed in the 

Commission’s Rulemaking proceeding 

by Jim Kirkland, on behalf of Trimble 

Navigation Limited, and Catherine 

Wang, on behalf of Deer & Company 

(jointly filed) and by Dane E. Ericksen, 

on behalf Engineers for the Integrity of 

Broadcast Auxiliary Services Spectrum. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions 

must be filed by August 21, 2014. 

Replies to an opposition must be filed 

by September 2, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Ronald Repasi, 

Office of Engineering and Technology, 

at (202) 418–0768 or ronald.repasi@

fcc.gov, or Peter Daronco, Broadband 

Division, Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, at (202) 418–7235 or 

peter.daronco@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of Commission’s document, 

Report No. 3005, released July 17, 2014. 

The full text of this document is 

available for viewing and copying in 

Room CY–B402, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC or may be purchased 

from the Commission’s copy contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1– 

800–378–3160). The Commission will 

not send a copy of this Notice pursuant 

to the Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this Notice 

does not have an impact on any rules of 

particular applicability. 

Subject: Amendment of the 

Commission’s Rules with Regard to 

Commercial Operations in the 1695– 

1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, and 2155– 

2180 MHz Bands, GN Docket No. 13– 

185, Report and Order, FCC 14–31, 

published at 79 FR 32366, June 4, 2014. 

Published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). 

See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Number of Petitions Filed: 2 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18527 Filed 8–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 90, 95, and 96 

[GN Docket No. 12–354; FCC 14–49; DA 

14–1071] 

Commission Seeks Comment on 

Shared Commercial Operations in the 

3550–3650 MHz Band; Extension of 

Reply Comment Period 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

reply comment period. 

SUMMARY: In this document the Federal 

Communications Commission extends 

the deadline for filing reply comments 

on its Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (FNPRM) in this 

proceeding, which was previously 

published in the Federal Register. 

DATES: Submit reply comments on or 

before August 15, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by GN Docket No. 12–354 or 

FCC 14–49, by any of the following 

methods: 

D Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web site: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

D Mail: All hand-delivered or 

messenger-delivered paper filings for 

the Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

Commercial overnight mail (other than 

U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and 

Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East 

Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 

20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

D People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Powell, Attorney Advisor, Wireless 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS