19206 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1The three States developed and submitted the 

‘‘Plan to Improve Air Quality in the Washington, 

DC-MD-VA Region, State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

for 8-Hour Ozone Standard, Moderate Area SIP’’ 

(hereafter the Washington Area 8-hour ozone plan). 2Effective July 20, 2012 (77 FR 30088, May 21, 

2012), EPA designated and classified nonattainment 

areas under the 2008 ozone NAAQS codified at 40 

CFR 50.15 for most areas of the country including 

the Washington Area. The Washington Area was 

designated as nonattainment and classified as 

marginal nonattainment. The boundaries of the 

ozone nonattainment area classified as moderate 

under the 1997 ozone NAAQS are the same as those 

of the ozone nonattainment area classified as 

marginal under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 40 

CFR 81.309, 81.321 and 81.347. Hereafter, when 

referring to the Washington Area in relation to SIP 

requirements required solely due to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, the term ‘‘Washington 2008 Ozone 

Nonattainment Area’’ will be used. 

3The attainment demonstration was required 

under 40 CFR 51.908 to demonstrate attainment of 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date of June 15, 2010 (the June 2010 

attainment date). 

Michigan or her on-scene representative 

to obtain permission to do so. The 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her 

on-scene representative may be 

contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel 

operators given permission to enter or 

operate in the safety zone must comply 

with all directions given to them by the 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her 

on-scene representative. 

Dated: March 30, 2015. 

A.B. Cocanour, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08345 Filed 4–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 202 

Preregistration and Registration of 

Claims to Copyright 

CFR Correction 

In Title 37 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, revised as of July 1, 2014, 

on page 614, in § 202.2, in paragraph 

(b)(1), the second copyright symbol, 

following the words ‘‘. . . or, in the case 

of a sound recording, the symbol’’, is 

corrected to read ‘‘Å’’. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08383 Filed 4–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0132; FRL–9925–27– 

Region–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 

Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard for the Washington, 

DC-MD-VA Moderate Nonattainment 

Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the 

attainment demonstration and 

associated contingency measures and 

motor vehicle emission budgets 

(MVEBs) for the Washington, DC-MDVA, moderate ozone nonattainment area 

(Washington Area) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) as submitted by the 

District of Columbia, the State of 

Maryland, and the Commonwealth of 

Virginia as revisions to each of their 

State Implementation Plans (SIPs). EPA 

has determined that each of the three 

SIP revisions including specifically the 

attainment demonstration, contingency 

measures and MVEBs meet the 

applicable requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act), and EPA is approving 

each revision. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 11, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0132. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the District of Columbia. 

Department of the Environment, Air 

Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 

5th Floor, Washington, DC 20002; the 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230; and the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

629 East Main Street, Richmond, 

Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Cripps, (215) 814–2179, or 

by email at cripps.christopher@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The District of Columbia, the State of 

Maryland, and the Commonwealth of 

Virginia submitted formal SIP revisions 

on June 12, 2007, June 4, 2007, and June 

12, 2007, respectively (hereafter the 

June 2007 SIP revisions). These June 

2007 SIP revisions were submitted to 

address CAA requirements for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS and included the 2002 

base year emissions inventory, the 15 

percent reasonable further progress plan 

(RFP) (15% RFP plan), RFP contingency 

measures, an attainment demonstration 

to show attainment of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS by June 15, 2010, a reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) 

analysis, and contingency measures for 

failure to attain. In addition, the 

submission included the transportation 

conformity 2008, 2009, and 2010 year 

MVEBs associated with the RFP plan, 

the attainment demonstration and 

contingency measures, respectively. The 

District of Columbia Department of the 

Environment (DDOE), the Maryland 

Department of the Environment (MDE), 

and the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (VADEQ) 

(hereafter referred to as the three States) 

jointly developed the June 2007 SIP 

revisions.1

These elements of the Washington 

Area 8-hour ozone plan were required 

for the Washington Area by sections 

172(c), 182(a), and 182(b)(1) of the CAA 

due to the classification of the 

Washington Area as a moderate ozone 

nonattainment area under the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. The boundaries of the 

Washington Area are defined in the 

tables for ‘‘1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

(Primary and Secondary)’’ in 40 CFR 

81.309, 81.321 and 81.347.2

On September 11, 2011 (76 FR 58116), 

EPA approved portions of the June 2007 

SIP revisions for the three States 

including the 2002 base year emissions 

inventory, 15% RFP plan and associated 

MVEBs for 2008, RFP contingency 

measures, and the RACM analysis. In 

this rulemaking action, EPA is 

approving the remaining portions of the 

June 2007 SIP revisions for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS including the attainment 

demonstration, the contingency 

measures, and the associated 2009 and 

2010 year MVEBs.3 In a March 20, 2013 

notice of proposed rulemaking (the 

March 20, 2013 NPR), EPA proposed to 

approve these remaining elements of the 

June 2007 SIP revisions. 78 FR 17161. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19207 

4The February 26, 2013 TSD is titled ‘‘Technical 

Support Document for Approval and Promulgation 

of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of 

Columbia, Maryland and Virginia; Attainment 

Demonstration for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Washington, 

DC-MD-VA Moderate Nonattainment Area,’’ dated 

February 26, 2013 and is in the docket for this 

rulemaking as document number EPA–R03–OAR– 

2013–0132–0006. 

The initial comment period closed on 

May 9, 2013 (78 FR 27160); however, 

EPA reopened the comment period until 

June 10, 2013. In this final rule, EPA is 

approving the portions of the June 2007 

SIP revisions which we proposed for 

approval in the March 20, 2013 NPR: 

the attainment demonstration, 

contingency measures, and 2009 and 

2010 year MVEBs. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The June 2007 SIP revisions 

addressed the attainment demonstration 

required under 40 CFR 51.908, 

contingency measures, and the 

associated 2009 and 2010 year MVEBs 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the 

Washington Area. Specific requirements 

for CAA attainment demonstrations, 

contingency measures and MVEBs for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 

rationale for EPA’s proposed action 

were explained in the NPR and will not 

be restated here. 

III. Attainment Status Based Upon 

Recent Air Quality Data 

Since the March 20, 2013 NPR, the 

three States have submitted and 

certified complete ambient air quality 

monitoring (AQ data) for the entire 2013 

ozone monitoring season. EPA has 

released the final 2011–2013 design 

values and posted these at http://

www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. 

The 2011–2013 design values show the 

Washington Area continues to attain the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. Table 1 shows 

these design values for monitors in the 

Washington Area in parts per billion 

(ppb) ozone. These design values in 

Table 1 demonstrate that the 

Washington Area continues to meet the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 

TABLE 1—ACTUAL MONITORED DESIGN VALUES (DVS) FOR 2011 TO 2013 PERIOD

Site data DV (ppb) 

AIRS ID Site name County/City State 2011–2013 

11–001–0041 ............. River Terrace ................................................. ......................................................................... DC 72 

11–001–0043 ............. McMillan ......................................................... ......................................................................... DC 79 

24–009–0010 ............. Calvert ............................................................ Calvert Co ...................................................... MD 77 

24–017–0010 ............. Southern MD .................................................. Charles Co ..................................................... MD 77 

24–021–0037 ............. Frederick Municipal Airport ............................ Frederick Co ................................................... MD 74 

24–031–3001 ............. Rockville ......................................................... Montgomery Co .............................................. MD 74 

24–033–0030 ............. HU-Beltsville ................................................... Prince George’s Co ........................................ MD 76 

24–033–8003 ............. PG Equestrian Center .................................... Prince George’s ............................................. MD 81 

24–033–8003 ............. Beltsville ......................................................... Prince George’s ............................................. MD 72 

51–013–0020 ............. Aurora Hills ..................................................... Arlington County ............................................. VA 79 

51–059–0030 ............. Franconia ....................................................... Fairfax County ................................................ VA 79 

51–107–1005 ............. Ashburn .......................................................... Loudoun County ............................................. VA 71 

51–153–0009 ............. Long Park ....................................................... Prince William County .................................... VA 69 

EPA has also examined available 2014 

ozone season AQ data. EPA notes that 

this AQ data is preliminary. EPA 

examined the data entered into EPA’s 

Air Quality System (AQS) available as 

of February 10, 2015. It has not 

undergone all the quality assurance/

quality control review and certification 

necessary to be used for regulatory 

purposes, and as of February 10, 2015 

may not cover the entire 2014 ozone 

season for the Washington Area which 

ended October 31, 2014. See Table D– 

3 ‘‘Ozone Monitoring Season by State’’ 

in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58. 

The highest preliminary design value 

in the Washington Area for the 2012– 

2014 period is 76 ppb which is meeting 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Until the 2014 

AQ data is quality assured and certified, 

this design value is preliminary and 

subject to change. However, the 

preliminary data indicates that the 

Washington Area continues to attain the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. For the March 20, 

2013 NPR, EPA prepared a technical 

support document (February 26, 2013 

TSD) which is in the docket for this 

rulemaking and is available online at 

www.regulations.gov as document 

number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0132– 

0006. 

EPA has also prepared a supplement 

to the February 26, 2013 TSD, 

‘‘Supplement to Technical Support 

Document for Approval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; District of 

Columbia, Maryland and Virginia; 

Attainment Demonstration for the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard for the Washington, 

DC-MD-VA Moderate Nonattainment 

Area,’’ dated February 12, 2015 (TSD 

Supplement); 4 this TSD Supplement 

provides additional analysis of the 2013 

and 2014 AQ data. The TSD 

Supplement and other documents 

concerning the 2013 and 2014 AQ data 

have been added to the docket for this 

action and are available online at 

www.regulations.gov at docket number 

EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0132. 

IV. Comments Received on the 2010 

Attainment Demonstration, MVEBs, 

and Contingency Measures and EPA’s 

Responses 

EPA received comments adverse to 

the proposed approval of the attainment 

demonstration, MVEBs and contingency 

measures from the June 2007 SIP 

revisions. A summary of these adverse 

comments and EPA responses follows. 

Comment: EPA received comments 

asserting that EPA must disapprove the 

attainment demonstrations in the June 

2007 SIP revisions because the 2010– 

2012 AQ data demonstrates that the 

Washington Area is not attaining the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. The commenter 

asserts that 40 CFR 51.112(a) provides 

that attainment demonstrations should 

be done with air quality modeling and 

with ‘‘data bases’’ such as EPA’s 

ambient air quality monitoring database, 

AQS. The commenter concludes that the 

three States’ attainment demonstration 

SIPs are therefore not adequate to attain 

and maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

The commenter cites Motor Vehicle 

Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm 

Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 30–31 

(1983) to support its claim that failure 

to consider the 2010–2012 AQ data 

would amount to a final rule that is 

arbitrary and capricious because ‘‘[T]he 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19208 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

5The comments cite section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) 

which is one of the prerequisites to redesignation 

to attainment from nonattainment. 

6The comments assert that the violation based 

upon the 2010 to 2012 AQ data was recorded 

despite the implementation by the three States of 

all control programs and contingency measures 

committed to in the attainment SIP and full 

implementation of Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 

agency must . . . examine the relevant 

data and articulate a satisfactory 

explanation for its action.’’ Id. Finally, 

a commenter stated that the weight of 

evidence demonstration in EPA’s March 

20, 2013 NPR is not rational because 

2010–2012 AQ data is more 

representative of real world conditions. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion that EPA must 

disapprove the attainment 

demonstrations submitted in June 2007 

based upon the results of the 2010–2012 

AQ data. EPA did in fact consider some 

air quality data beyond the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS June 15, 2010 attainment date. 

EPA considered 2009–2011 air quality 

data when proposing approval of the 

three States’ June 2007 SIP revisions 

which are the subject of this 

rulemaking. See Table 2 ‘‘Modeled 

Predicted 2009 Design Values versus 

Actual Monitored Design Values’’ and 

Table 3 ‘‘Actual Monitored Design 

Values 2009 to 2011’’ in the February 

26, 2013 TSD in the docket for this 

action (Docket ID#: EPA–R03–OAR– 

2013–0132). EPA examined the actual 

monitored ozone design values through 

2011 while evaluating the three States’ 

attainment demonstrations and 

concluded that the overall trend of 

ozone air quality in the Washington 

Area was improving. Because EPA 

concluded the trend was improving and 

because the Washington Area attained 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the 

attainment date of June 15, 2010, EPA 

determined that the 3 States’ June 2007 

SIP revisions adequately demonstrated 

attainment of the ozone standard by the 

attainment date and EPA proposed to 

approve the demonstrations. 78 FR at 

17165. As discussed in Section III of 

this rulemaking action, EPA has 

examined ozone design values for the 

Washington Area for 2011–2013 and has 

examined preliminary monitoring data 

from 2014 which demonstrate the 

Washington Area continues to attain the 

1997 ozone NAAQS and demonstrate 

the overall ozone design value trend is 

decreasing from 2003 to 2014. See also 

the TSD Supplement. Thus, EPA has 

considered relevant data and disagrees 

with the commenter that EPA must 

disapprove the attainment 

demonstrations from the June 2007 SIP 

revisions due to the 2010–2012 data for 

the Washington Area. 

The CAA is very prescriptive in 

section 110(k)(3) concerning under what 

conditions EPA must approve a SIP 

revision: ‘‘[t]the Administrator shall 

approve such [SIP revision] submittal as 

a whole if it meets all of the applicable 

requirements of this chapter’’ (with 

emphasis added). As relevant to the 

moderate area attainment plan for the 

Washington Area, section 182(b)(1)(A)(i) 

requires that: ‘‘By no later than 3 years 

after November 15, 1990, the State shall 

submit a revision to the applicable 

implementation plan to . . . provide for 

such specific annual reductions in 

emissions of volatile organic 

compounds and oxides of nitrogen as 

necessary to attain the national primary 

ambient air quality standard for ozone 

by the attainment date applicable under 

this chapter.’’ (Emphasis added.) 

The applicable attainment date for 

areas classified as moderate like the 

Washington Area for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS was no later than June 15, 2010 

pursuant to Table 1 of 40 CFR 51.903(a) 

(i.e., six years after the June 15, 2004 

effective date of nonattainment 

designation for 8-hour NAAQS). See 69 

FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). Application 

of 40 CFR 51.908(d) results in a de facto 

attainment date by the close of calendar 

year 2009, which included the last 

complete ozone monitoring season prior 

to June 15, 2010. See 69 FR at 23951 and 

23989 (stating that the determination of 

attainment for an area with an 

attainment date in May 2010 would be 

based on AQ data from 2007, 2008 and 

2009). CAA sections 172 and 182 

require the SIPs for the Washington 

Area to demonstrate attainment with the 

1997 ozone NAAQS but do not require 

the plan to address continued 

maintenance of the standard after the 

attainment date. That requirement is 

specified as a component of 

redesignation in CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E) and is detailed in section 

175A(a). Thus, a state is not required to 

develop a plan to maintain the standard 

until such time as it has air quality 

meeting the NAAQS and is seeking 

redesignation to attainment. 

The attainment demonstrations 

submitted by the three States addressed 

all of the applicable requirements for 

such plans in CAA sections 172 and 182 

as explained in the March 20, 2013 

NPR. In addition, the Washington Area 

did in fact attain the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS by its attainment date of June 

15, 2010. See 77 FR 11739 (February 28, 

2012). A violation of the NAAQS for the 

period 2010–2012, which is after the 

attainment date, is not determinative of 

whether the plan was adequate for 

showing that the standard would be met 

by the attainment date, and EPA 

disagrees with the commenter that the 

SIP must be disapproved now on the 

basis of that data. Because EPA based 

approval of the attainment 

demonstrations partially on the overall 

improving ozone air quality trends in 

addition to the fact that the Area 

attained by its attainment date, EPA 

notes that the area continued to meet 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS based on its 

design value for 2008–2010, 2009–2011, 

and 2011–2013. Preliminary data from 

2014 also indicate that it is likely that 

the Washington Area is meeting the 

1997 ozone NAAQS for the period of 

2012–2014. Thus, EPA disagrees that 

EPA must disapprove the June 2007 SIP 

revisions after considering the 2010– 

2012 data suggested by commenter 

because the Washington Area’s 

attainment by the attainment date plus 

overall trend of attaining the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS supports approval. 

Comment: EPA received comments 

asserting that EPA should exercise 

caution in approving the attainment 

demonstrations from the June 2007 SIP 

revisions because the ambient air 

quality monitoring data through 2012 

indicated that air quality has degraded 

over time as indicated by ozone 

concentrations in the DC area having 

steadily increased over time. The 

commenters assert that such 

degradation is not consistent with the 

goal in the CAA of moving towards 

redesignation to attainment of the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. The comments state that 

the worsening air quality for the 

Washington Area after 2009 for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS casts doubt about the 

improvement in air quality through 

2009 being due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions from the 

implementation of the applicable 

implementation plan and applicable 

Federal air pollutant control regulations 

which the commenter asserts is 

necessary for redesignation of the 

Washington Area to attainment for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS pursuant to section 

107 of the CAA.5 6 One commenter 

noted that the design value for the 

Washington Area rose as follows: 0.080 

parts per million (ppm) for 2007 to 

2009, 0.081 ppm for 2008 to 2010, 0.082 

ppm for 2009 to 2011, and 0.087 ppm 

for 2010 to 2012. 

Response: The attainment 

demonstration provisions of the Act do 

not require the state to demonstrate that 

the measures adopted to attain the 

standard will ensure continued 

maintenance of the NAAQS. Also, as the 

commenter notes in the comments, the 

issue of whether reductions are due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions is aligned with redesignation 

for a specific standard and with one of 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19209 

7These are codified at 40 CFR 50.15 and 40 CFR 

50.11, respectively. 

8The commenter cited section 172(a)(2) for the 

proposition that attainment dates are to be the date 

by which attainment can be achieved as 

expeditiously as practicable. Because EPA is 

implementing the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS 

under ‘‘subpart 2’’ (sections 181 through 185B) by 

classifying all ozone nonattainment areas under 

both these NAAQS under section 181, EPA notes 

that the proper citation for this proposition should 

be section 181(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1103 

(implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS under 

section 181) which requires attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS be ‘‘as expeditiously as practicable’’ but no 

later than the date provided in Table 1 of 40 CFR 

51.1103. 

9See also Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate 

Dictionary, defining ‘‘interfere’’ as ‘‘to interpose in 

a way that hinders or impedes.’’ 

the redesignation criteria in section 

107(d)(3)(E). EPA does note, however, 

that increased ambient ozone levels are 

not necessarily associated with the 

measures in the SIP not being 

permanent and enforceable. Rather, air 

quality is based on a complicated mix 

of factors that include, but go beyond 

the level of emissions. Other factors 

include air temperature, wind patterns, 

and emissions from upwind sources 

outside of the nonattainment area. For 

that reason, it is not unusual that an 

area’s design value can vary year-to-year 

and that for some years it may be higher 

than for an earlier year. The design 

value did show a slight increase 

between the 2009 design value and the 

2011 design value and then had a more 

significant jump for the 2012 design 

value. However, the 2013 design value 

was lower than that for 2012 and met 

the 1997 NAAQS and preliminary data 

indicates that the 2014 design value will 

also be lower than that for 2012 and will 

also meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

If the states choose to submit a request 

to redesignate the Washington Area, 

they will need to demonstrate that they 

have met the requirements of section 

107(d)(3)(E), including the requirement 

that the improvements in air quality are 

due to permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions; however, as 

EPA has explained, that issue is not 

relevant for determining whether the 

area demonstrated that it would attain 

the 1997 NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. 

Comment: Another commenter asserts 

that EPA cannot approve the attainment 

demonstrations from the June 2007 SIP 

revisions because neither the SIP 

submittals nor EPA provide any analysis 

pursuant to CAA section 110(l). 

Specifically, the commenters claim 

there is no analysis of whether or not 

EPA’s approval of the attainment 

demonstrations for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS will interfere with any 

applicable requirements regarding the 

2008 ozone NAAQS and the 2010 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS.7 The 

commenter claims because the 

attainment demonstrations in the June 

2007 SIP revisions do not require any 

additional emission reductions, the 

attainment demonstrations may 

interfere with attaining the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS as expeditiously as 

practicable; 8 the commenter specifically 

asserts that requiring additional 

nitrogen oxide (NOX) emission 

reductions for the attainment 

demonstrations will result in more 

expeditious attainment of and in 

reasonable further progress for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS and result in 

implementation of RACM. The 

commenter also asserts that EPA must 

conduct this analysis and provide the 

public with an opportunity to review 

and comment on this analysis. 

Response: EPA disagrees that a CAA 

section 110(l) analysis is required for 

the purpose suggested by the 

commenter. Section 110(l) prohibits 

approval of a SIP revision ‘‘if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress . . . and any other applicable 

requirement of this chapter.’’ EPA notes 

that our approval of the June 2007 SIP 

revisions does not remove any SIP 

requirements nor reduce any 

requirements in the three States’ SIPs. 

Thus, EPA disagrees that EPA cannot 

approve the 2007 SIP revisions without 

a section 110(l) analysis. 

However, even though EPA believes a 

section 110(l) analysis is not required 

here as no applicable requirements are 

being removed or reduced, EPA does 

note that the volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and NOX reductions 

achieved to attain the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS for the Washington Area will 

also provide benefits for attaining and/ 

or maintaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

and NOX reductions will provide 

benefits for attaining and/or maintaining 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Thus, EPA finds 

our approval of the June 2007 SIP 

revisions will not interfere with the 

requirements applicable for those other 

two NAAQS. EPA also disagrees with 

the commenter’s assertion that the three 

States’ attainment demonstrations may 

interfere with attaining the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS as no additional NOX

reductions are required because the 

pollutants reduced in the Washington 

Area in its attaining the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS are the same pollutants that 

need to be regulated for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

The commenter does not make any 

specific claim regarding the analysis for 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, but rather simply 

asserts that a section 110(l) analysis was 

not done. EPA notes that no part of the 

Washington Area has been designated as 

nonattainment for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. See 77 FR 9532 (February 17, 

2012) and 40 CFR 81.309, 81.321 and 

81.347. Therefore, no part of the 

Washington Area is subject to ‘‘Part D’’ 

planning requirements (such as sections 

172(b), 172(c), 181 or 182) for the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS because these ‘‘Part D’’ 

requirements apply only to SIPs 

required for nonattainment areas. EPA 

notes that the affected States have all 

made SIP submissions to address the 

applicable requirements in section 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. The commenter does not 

suggest nor is EPA aware of anything in 

the attainment demonstration 

submissions for the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

that would undercut or undermine the 

requirements in the section 110 SIPs 

submitted for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

The commenter’s claim regarding 

interference with the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS also ignores the structure of the 

statute. Under the CAA, EPA is required 

to periodically review and revise as 

necessary the NAAQS. When EPA 

revises a NAAQS, a planning cycle 

begins for that new NAAQS. EPA is first 

required to designate areas and, for 

those areas designated nonattainment, a 

time clock for submission of plans to 

address nonattainment begins at the 

time of designation. EPA designated 

areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

effective June 2012, and nonattainment 

area SIPs for that standard are generally 

due in June 2015. The interpretation set 

forth by the commenter ignores that 

structure and instead suggests that once 

a new NAAQS is promulgated, the state 

must demonstrate any time it revises its 

SIP that such revisions will also fulfill 

requirements applicable for the new 

standard (e.g., demonstrate attainment, 

meet RACM). In other words, the 

commenter is reading section 110(l) to 

supersede the more prescriptive and 

descriptive provisions in Part D of title 

I of the CAA that govern nonattainment 

area planning. It is untenable to read 

that much detail and meaning into the 

word ‘‘interfere.’’ EPA’s reasonable 

interpretation is that this provision 

means that a plan cannot undermine or 

impede applicable requirements for the 

same or other NAAQS.9 And, in this 

circumstance, the reductions relied on 

for attainment of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS will not undermine or impede 

progress toward meeting the newer 

NAAQS because it regulates the same 

pollutants that need to be regulated for 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19210 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

10EPA assumes the commenter is referring to the 

Capitol Power Plant which is located in 

Washington, DC which provides steam and chilled 

water used to heat and cool buildings throughout 

the U.S. Capitol campus. 

11Regarding suggested NOX control measures, the 

commenter cites for support generically to EPA’s 

Cross State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208, 48282 

(August 8, 2011), which addresses interstate 

transport of emissions for the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

and to Appalachian Power v. EPA, 135 F.3d 791, 

819 (D.C. Cir. 1998) which addressed NOX limits on 

EGUs under Title IV of the CAA. The commenter 

also cites to NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 

2013) (remanding PM2.5 implementation rule) in 

support of the comment that EPA should require 

ammonia control measures. 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS. Any further reductions 

needed for attaining the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS will be addressed through the 

attainment planning process provided 

in Part D of title I of the CAA for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Comment: Another commenter claims 

that because the air quality in the 

Washington Area does not meet either 

the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, one 

cost-effective and expeditious method to 

deal with this problem is to impose an 

emission limit of 0.07 pounds per 

million British thermal units (lb/

mmbtu) on each coal-burning electric 

generating unit (EGU) and each coal 

fired unit at the Capitol Heat Plant in 

the Washington Area.10 The commenter 

claims such a limit is a reasonably 

available control measure and cited 

court decisions, EPA preamble text and 

other documents to support this 

conclusion.11 The commenter suggests 

various specifics related to such a limit 

such as applicability, prohibition of 

inter-unit averaging, averaging periods, 

compliance dates and other details. The 

commenter also suggested limits for 

‘‘ammonia slip’’ because states need to 

assume that ammonia is a fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) precursor. 

Response: As an initial matter, EPA 

does not have authority under the CAA 

to condition approval of the attainment 

demonstrations in the 2007 June SIP 

revisions upon adoption of a specific 

measure such as the NOX limit 

suggested by the commenter for EGUs or 

any ammonia slip requirement. Under 

the cooperative federalism structure of 

the SIP program designed by Congress, 

the states have the authority to choose 

the measures needed for attainment of 

the NAAQS. See Train v. Natural 

Resources Defense Council, 421 U.S. 60, 

79 (1975) (stating ‘‘so long as the 

ultimate effect of a State’s choice of 

emission limitations is compliance with 

the national standards for ambient air, 

the State is at liberty to adopt whatever 

mix of emission limitations it deems 

best suited to its particular situation’’); 

Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 

269 (1976) (finding Congress via section 

110 ‘‘plainly left to the states the power 

to determine which sources would be 

burdened by regulations and to what 

extent’’). See also Virginia v. EPA, 108 

F.3d 1397, 1407–08 (D.C. Cir. 1997) 

(stating EPA cannot question the 

wisdom of a state’s choices of emission 

limitations for a SIP if the plan satisfies 

the standards of section 110(a)(2)). 

The commenter appears to be 

claiming that the identified NOX control 

measures for EGUs and the Capitol 

Power Plant and an ammonia slip 

requirement must be adopted by the 

states in order to meet the RACM 

requirement in CAA section 172. 

Because EPA previously approved the 

States’ RACM portions of the June 2007 

SIP revisions on September 20, 2011 (76 

FR 58116), this issue as raised now by 

the commenter has not been timely 

raised and no further response is 

necessary. However, EPA further notes 

that EPA’s longstanding interpretation 

of the RACM requirement in CAA 

section 172 involves an evaluation of 

whether the measures will advance the 

attainment date by one year. See Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 744–745 (5th 

Cir. 2002) and Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 

F.3d, 155, 162 (D.C. Cir. 2002). See also 

57 FR 13498, 13560 (April 16, 1992); 44 

FR 20372, 20374 (April 4, 1979). 

Notably, the attainment date for the 

Washington Area (June 15, 2010) has 

passed and the Area is in fact attaining 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS as mentioned 

previously. Thus, at this juncture, the 

NOX or ammonia control measures 

suggested by the commenter are not 

ones that could advance the attainment 

date of the Washington Area and would 

not qualify as RACM, even if EPA were 

evaluating RACM for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS for the Area. 

Comment: EPA received comments 

that assert EPA cannot approve the 

attainment demonstrations in the June 

2007 SIP revisions because 40 CFR 

51.112(a) provides that attainment 

demonstrations must demonstrate that 

the measures, rules, and regulations 

contained in it are adequate to provide 

for the timely attainment and 

maintenance of the national standard 

that it implements. The commenters 

also claim that 40 CFR 51.908(d) further 

supports the claim that the attainment 

demonstration SIP must provide for 

maintenance as part of attainment 

demonstrations because it requires 

implementation of all control measures 

needed for attainment no later than the 

beginning of the attainment year ozone 

season. The commenters assert that the 

language of ‘‘no later than’’ does not 

allow for this requirement to stop after 

the attainment year ozone season, and 

the plain language of this regulation 

provides for control measures needed 

for attainment after the attainment year. 

Response: For the reasons provided in 

the March 20, 2013 NPR and in this 

final rule, EPA has determined that the 

modeled attainment demonstration in 

the June 2007 SIP revisions and 

supporting analyses show that 

measures, rules and regulations 

contained in the June 2007 SIP revisions 

provide for timely attainment of the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA disagrees with 

the commenter that EPA cannot approve 

the attainment demonstrations because 

the demonstrations do not provide for 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

The regulatory provision cited by the 

commenter, 40 CFR 51.112(a), was first 

promulgated in 1986, prior to enactment 

of the CAA Amendments of 1990. This 

provision establishes broad principles 

applicable to ‘‘control strategy’’ SIPs 

and both attainment demonstrations and 

maintenance plans are types of control 

strategy SIPs. Under the CAA, as 

amended in 1990, those two SIPs are 

addressed separately in the Act, and the 

Act establishes separate timeframes for 

submission of those two SIPs. 

Specifically, maintenance SIPs are now 

specifically required under CAA section 

175A as a prerequisite to redesignation 

of an area to attainment with the 

NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the 

CAA and thus are to be submitted after 

an area has attained the NAAQS. Thus, 

EPA applies 40 CFR 51.112(a) in the 

context of the control strategy SIP under 

review and consistent with the structure 

of the Act. For example, maintenance 

plans need not project timely attainment 

because an area must have actually 

attained a NAAQS before a maintenance 

plan can support a redesignation request 

under section 107(d)(3)(E). Similarly, as 

discussed in an earlier response to 

comment, attainment demonstrations 

are due several years after designation 

as nonattainment and are for the 

purpose of demonstrating how an area 

will attain the NAAQS ‘‘by’’ a specific 

date but are not required to address air 

quality after the attainment date. In 

other words, consistent with the 

structure of the Act, EPA does not read 

40 CFR 51.112(a) to require an 

attainment demonstration to 

demonstrate maintenance of a NAAQS 

nor to require a maintenance plan to 

demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. 

The commenter’s interpretation that 

40 CFR 51.908(d) supports a 

requirement that attainment 

demonstrations must include a 

demonstration of maintenance of the 

NAAQS beyond the attainment date is 

also misplaced. The sole purpose of this 

regulatory provision was to make clear 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19211 

12CSAPR was issued by EPA to replace CAIR and 

to help states reduce air pollution and attain CAA 

standards. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (final 

rule). CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2

and NOX emissions from EGUs in 28 states in the 

Eastern United States that significantly contribute 

to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and 

ozone NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

to states the date by which all measures 

relied on for purpose of demonstrating 

attainment must be in place. 

Specifically, they must be implemented 

by the beginning of the final ozone 

season before the attainment date. The 

provision says or implies nothing 

beyond that simple requirement. This is 

further supported by the discussion in 

the preamble to the final rule 

promulgating this provision to 

implement the 1997 ozone NAAQS in 

which EPA consistently spoke only of 

the analysis needed to demonstrate 

timely attainment of the ozone NAAQS 

requirements and never of any need to 

demonstrate ‘‘maintenance’’ of the 

ozone NAAQS. See 70 FR 71612, 71615, 

71626–71627 (November 29, 2005) 

(‘‘Phase 2’’ final rule for implementation 

of 1997 ozone NAAQS). EPA referenced 

sections 172(c), 182(b), and 182(c) as the 

applicable CAA provisions regarding 

attainment demonstrations for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS and did not cite or 

discuss the maintenance plan provision 

in section 175A. Id. 

Comment: EPA received comments 

asserting that the SIP for the 

Washington Area relies on CAIR to 

address the ‘‘transport’’ problem and 

note that CAIR was remanded after the 

June 2007 SIP revisions were submitted. 

The commenters assert that because 

reduction of transported emissions still 

depend on the remanded CAIR, key 

modeling assumptions made for the 

attainment demonstrations in the June 

2007 SIP revisions are questionable. 

These comments assert that EPA’s own 

modeling analysis for the Cross State 

Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) indicates 

that transported pollution and ozone 

precursors from upwind jurisdictions 

play a significant role in the Washington 

region and that up to 75 percent of the 

ozone pollution in the Washington Area 

comes from states outside of the 

nonattainment area.12 These 

commenters state that the three States 

relied on emissions reductions in 

upwind states to meet the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. The commenters state that 

despite attempts by EPA, the full 

benefits of a replacement rule have not 

been realized and state it is premature 

to approve the attainment 

demonstrations without a viable 

transport strategy in place. The 

comments conclude that the burden 

remains on EPA to persevere to replace 

CAIR so that further reductions are 

made to minimize contributions from 

upwind states. The comments suggested 

EPA could use CAA section 110(k)(5) to 

initiate a SIP call to merge addressing 

transport for the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

with addressing transport for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. The commenters 

conclude that EPA’s proposed action to 

fully approve the attainment 

demonstrations from the June 2007 SIP 

revisions without sufficiently 

addressing transport should not proceed 

and that a partial approval should be 

granted at most of such things as the 

MVEBs. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenters that it is premature to 

approve the attainment demonstrations 

from the June 2007 SIP revisions for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS due to concerns 

raised by the commenters regarding 

CAIR and transport of pollution. CAIR, 

as relied on for purposes of the 

attainment demonstration (and as 

described in more detail below) was 

being implemented through the 

attainment date. As provided in our 

earlier responses to comments, 

attainment demonstrations are required 

to demonstrate that an area will attain 

the NAAQS ‘‘by’’ a specific date, and 

EPA does not review such SIPs to 

determine whether they will show 

continued maintenance of the NAAQS. 

EPA is unclear about what the 

commenters are suggesting regarding a 

SIP Call—i.e., whether they are 

suggesting that EPA issue a SIP Call for 

the SIPs for the Washington DC Area or 

whether they are make a broader 

suggestion that EPA issue a new SIP 

Call rule. In either case, the comment is 

not relevant to the present rule. The 

issue in this present rulemaking is 

whether EPA should approve specific 

SIP submissions pending before the 

Agency and not whether EPA should 

issue a SIP Call for the already-approved 

SIPs for the Washington DC area. Nor, 

does this rulemaking action purport to 

address the broader issue of whether 

EPA should issue a new ‘‘SIP Call’’ rule 

requiring upwind states to address 

transported pollution for any NAAQS. 

Although not relevant for purposes of 

whether the attainment demonstration 

demonstrates attainment by the 

attainment date, EPA notes that EPA 

also disagrees with the characterization 

by the commenter that the transport 

rules are not reducing transported 

emissions. Despite the litigation 

regarding CAIR and CSAPR, the rules 

are providing a continuous mandate to 

states to address upwind transport as 

described in this response. 

CAIR was promulgated May 12, 2005 

(70 FR 25162) and required 28 states 

and the District of Columbia to adopt 

and submit revisions to their SIPs to 

eliminate sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX

emissions from EGUs that contribute 

significantly to downwind 

nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and 

ozone NAAQS. The three States 

developed their attainment 

demonstrations for the June 2007 SIP 

revisions after CAIR was promulgated 

and being implemented in Maryland, 

Virginia, and the District of Columbia. 

CAIR was remanded to EPA in 2008, 

North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 

1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but it was not 

vacated and implementation of the 

program continued for most areas. EPA 

subsequently promulgated CSAPR to 

replace CAIR and address transport for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 

(August 8, 2011). Implementation of 

CSAPR was scheduled to begin on 

January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would 

have superseded the CAIR program. 

However, numerous parties filed 

petitions for review of CSAPR, and on 

December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit 

issued an order staying CSAPR pending 

resolution of the petitions and directing 

EPA to continue to administer CAIR. 

EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. 

EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 

2011), Order at 2. 

In 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a 

decision in EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), 

vacating CSAPR and ordering EPA to 

continue administering CAIR pending 

the promulgation of a valid 

replacement. On April 29, 2014, the 

Supreme Court reversed the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision on CSAPR and 

remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit for 

further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer 

City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 

(2014). After the Supreme Court 

decision, EPA filed a motion to lift the 

stay on CSAPR and asked the D.C. 

Circuit to toll CSAPR’s compliance 

deadlines by three years, so that the 

Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 

2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 

2013), and the Phase 2 emissions 

budgets apply in 2017 and beyond 

(instead of 2014 and beyond). On 

October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit 

granted EPA’s motion. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302 

(D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order at 3. EPA 

issued an interim final rule to clarify 

how EPA will implement CSAPR 

consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s order 

granting EPA’s motion requesting lifting 

the stay and tolling the rule’s deadlines. 

79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) 

(interim final rulemaking). 

Throughout the litigation described 

previously in this rulemaking action, 

EPA continued to implement CAIR 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19212 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

which led to significant reductions in 

emissions of SO2 and NOX from EGUs. 

However, on December 31, 2014, EPA 

sunset CAIR’s provisions, and 

implementation of CSAPR began on 

January 1, 2015 in accordance with our 

interim final rule. 79 FR 71663. Now 

that implementation of CSAPR has 

begun, the emission reductions in SO2

and NOX from implementation of CAIR 

at EGUs will continue through CSAPR 

implementation. See 76 FR 48208. 

Comment: One commenter asserts 

that EPA has changed its position on 

whether or not EPA could approve the 

attainment demonstrations from the 

June 2007 SIP revisions for the 

Washington Area as well as other ozone 

nonattainment areas under the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. The commenter claims 

that at one time EPA stated that it could 

not approve the attainment 

demonstration portions of the June 2007 

SIP revisions because the modeling was 

based on CAIR; the commenter links the 

uncertainty about CAIR to doubts about 

assurances that the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

would be attained. The commenter 

asserts that EPA’s proposed approval 

relies upon the same modeling which 

continues to be based on CAIR (which 

was remanded to EPA) and claims the 

change in policy seems to be based on 

ambient air quality monitoring data 

which allowed EPA to declare that the 

Washington Area attained the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. The commenter claims 

EPA should not approve an attainment 

demonstration that relies on modeling 

which was based in part on CAIR. 

Response: As explained previously in 

response to a prior comment, EPA 

sunset its implementation of CAIR on 

December 31, 2014 and is now 

implementing CSAPR pursuant to the 

Supreme Court’s upholding of CSAPR 

as a means to address transport of 

pollution for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

pursuant to the D.C. Circuit’s lifting the 

stay on CSAPR, and pursuant to our 

interim final rule which provided 

clarification that CSAPR would be 

implemented as of January 1, 2015. 

During the litigation in the D.C. Circuit 

over CAIR and CSAPR, EPA continued 

to review and evaluate SIPs such as the 

June 2007 SIP revisions in accordance 

with CAA requirements. EPA disagrees 

that it ‘‘changed its position’’ on the 

approvability of the attainment 

demonstrations from the June 2007 SIP 

revisions. During the pendency of 

litigation concerning CAIR and CSAPR, 

EPA merely exercised caution in 

reviewing data which relied upon CAIR, 

and EPA proposed approval of the June 

2007 SIP revisions when EPA 

concluded reliance upon data related to 

CAIR was appropriate given the 

litigation in the D.C. Circuit. However, 

as mentioned previously, EPA 

continued to implement CAIR during 

the litigation in the D.C. Circuit, and 

emission reductions of SO2 and NOX

from EGUs occurred through CAIR. The 

States appropriately relied on CAIR and 

CAIR emission reductions in the June 

2007 SIP revisions. EPA believes that 

continued and further reductions will 

occur with CSAPR. While the air quality 

data for the Washington Area has 

changed and improved generally over 

time, the air quality data presently 

indicates the Washington Area is 

attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 

the Washington Area did attain by its 

attainment date of June 15, 2010 when 

EPA was implementing CAIR. 

As explained in the March 20, 2013 

NPR, in the February 26, 2013 TSD, in 

the TSD Supplement, and in response to 

prior comments, EPA based our 

decision to approve the attainment 

demonstrations upon the fact that the 

Washington Area did in fact attain the 

1997 ozone NAAQS by the required 

June 15, 2010 attainment date and upon 

our evaluation that the Area continues 

to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA 

believes the attainment demonstrations 

are in accordance with CAA 

requirements in sections 172 and 182 

and believes the improving air quality 

data supports our decision to approve 

these attainment demonstrations for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. Thus, for the 

reasons detailed in the March 20, 2013 

NPR and in this rulemaking action, EPA 

finds the attainment demonstration in 

accordance with CAA requirements, and 

EPA disagrees with commenters that 

any concerns with CAIR prevent our 

approval of these attainment 

demonstrations. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

although speedy approval of SIPs is 

desirable, at this juncture, approval of 

the attainment demonstrations from the 

June 2007 SIP revisions sends the wrong 

message to states and the public. The 

commenter claims that approval will 

not force state actions to address the 

1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS and 

therefore will result in continuation of 

unhealthy air for citizens of the 

Washington Area. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that action on the SIP 

‘‘sends the wrong message’’ to the 

public. Under the CAA, states are 

required to develop plans for each 

NAAQS and EPA is required to act on 

such submittals. Thus, to the extent the 

commenter is suggesting that EPA not 

act on the submission, such inaction is 

not allowed under the CAA. See CAA 

section 110(k)(1)–(3). The commenter’s 

claim that action on an attainment SIP 

for the 1997 NAAQS will not force 

action by the state on a SIP for the 2008 

NAAQS or will ‘‘continue’’ unhealthy 

air is misguided. The 2008 ozone 

NAAQS is a separate NAAQS with a 

separate statutory schedule for state 

adoption and submission of SIPs. EPA’s 

action on a SIP required to address the 

1997 ozone NAAQS has no effect on the 

obligation of the state to adopt rules and 

plans to meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

In addition, SIPs for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS are not yet due. Although, the 

attainment SIP for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS is not intended to demonstrate 

how the state will meet the tighter 2008 

ozone NAAQS, the reductions achieved 

by the attainment SIP will also provide 

benefits for that newer 2008 ozone 

standard. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that if the proposed 2008 SIP 

Requirements Rule moves forward as 

currently written and the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS is entirely revoked, EPA could 

consider a process similar to that 

conducted during transition from the 1- 

hour standard to the 1997 8-hour 

standard. Under such process, the 

Washington Area’s ‘‘moderate’’ area 

requirements under the 1997 standard 

could be continued under the 2008 

standard, at least until the region is 

designated ‘‘attainment’’ for the 1997 

standard, as suggested in CAA section 

172(e). 

Response: This comment addresses 

the substance of a separate rule for 

implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

and is not related to whether EPA 

should approve the attainment 

demonstration addressed in this action 

rulemaking. EPA will address in the 

final action on that separate rule 

concerning implementation of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, the issue of how long 

the requirements applicable for the 1997 

NAAQS remain in place as areas 

transition to implementation of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

Comment: Several commenters noted 

that because of the determination of 

attainment by the attainment date and 

clean data determination for the 

Washington Area issued on February 28, 

2012, EPA will not have to reclassify the 

Washington Area under the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS and that the three States are not 

required to submit any planning SIPs 

related to attainment of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS standard unless a violation of 

the standard occurs. The commenters 

assert that violation of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS has occurred and called for 

action by EPA. These commenters 

asserted that section 110(k)(5) requires 

EPA to issue a SIP call because the 

attainment demonstrations in the June 

2007 SIP revisions are inadequate to 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19213 

13The 1997 ozone NAAQS as codified at 40 CFR 

50.10 is 0.08 ppm, but EPA’s interpretation (and 

under the interpretation in Appendix I to 40 CFR 

part 50) of the 1997 ozone NAAQS after considering 

the number of significant figures requires a design 

value equal to or greater than 0.085 ppm (85 ppb) 

to be a violation. 

maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the 

Washington Area. EPA received other 

comments that suggested EPA merge the 

SIP call requirement in section 110(k)(5) 

under the 1997 ozone NAAQS with 

requirements under the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. One commenter asserted that 

in addition to section 110(k)(5), EPA 

could use section 110(k)(6) to correct 

prior actions when EPA finds a 

previously approved SIP inadequate. 

One commenter speculated that EPA 

has not moved with an action under 

section 110(k)(5) perhaps because the 

area has been designated nonattainment 

for the 2008 ozone standard. 

Response: The comments do not 

address EPA’s action on the attainment 

demonstration, but instead suggest that 

EPA take additional rulemaking 

pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5) or 

110(k)(6) and thus are outside the scope 

of this rulemaking action. EPA notes 

that although the 2012 design value was 

violating the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 

area is attaining that NAAQS based on 

the 2013 design value and preliminary 

data from 2014 indicates that it is 

continuing to meet the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

Comment: EPA received comments 

claiming that EPA should promptly 

revoke the determination of attainment 

EPA issued for the Washington Area on 

February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11739) based 

on the 2010 to 2012 air quality data 

showing a violation of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

Response: The comments do not 

address this action on the attainment 

demonstration, but instead suggest that 

EPA take additional rulemaking action 

to revoke our prior clean data 

determination for the Washington Area; 

thus the comments are outside the scope 

of this rulemaking action. As discussed 

previously, EPA notes that based on air 

quality data from 2011 to 2013 and on 

preliminary data from 2012 to 2014, the 

Washington Area is attaining the 1997 

ozone NAAQS and thus currently has 

clean data for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

Comment: EPA received comments 

claiming that EPA explained in its 

proposed approval of the Washington 

Area attainment demonstrations from 

the June 2007 SIP revisions that the 

actual monitored values from the 

attainment year confirm the model overpredicted ozone concentrations by 0.002 

ppm (2 ppb) and also claiming that the 

actual design values upon which EPA 

based these findings of model overprediction are from years that are not 

representative of the same kind of 

meteorology chosen for the modeling. 

The commenter claims that the 

attainment year period was cooler and 

wetter and would be expected to 

generate less ozone. The commenter 

asserts that the design values for the 

Washington Area have increased for 

four straight years now that data from 

2009 is not included in the design value 

calculation. The commenter notes that 

the most recent air quality data 

indicates the model-predicted ozone 

values are just as likely to be correct 

rather than an over-prediction. In 

addition, the commenter notes that EPA 

also cited a descending trend in ozone 

values as weight of evidence that the 

modeling over-predicts ozone for the 

region. Now that design values no 

longer include 2009 ozone season data, 

the commenter claims design value 

trends are increasing and do not show 

continued attainment of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. These comments conclude that 

EPA must disapprove the attainment 

demonstration based on the current 

values. 

Response: As EPA has explained 

previously, the issue for approving the 

attainment demonstration is not 

whether the area has continued to 

maintain the NAAQS several years 

following the attainment date, but rather 

whether the modeled attainment 

demonstration demonstrated that the 

area would attain by its attainment date. 

For the reasons provided in the 

proposed rule and this final rule, EPA 

has determined that the attainment 

demonstrations in the June 2007 SIP 

revisions show attainment by the Area’s 

attainment date of June 15, 2010. 

Furthermore, monitored attainment, 

including the 2009 design value, 

support that the Washington Area 

attained the standard by its attainment 

date. 

EPA notes that in the March 20, 2013 

NPR, EPA stated that the modeling 

conducted by the three States for the 

June 2008 SIP revisions over predicted 

2009 ozone design values relative to the 

actual monitored 2009 to 2011 design 

values for most cases and always for 

four monitors for which the modeled 

design values were in the range of 82 to 

87 ppb. See 78 FR at 17164. EPA also 

stated in the March 20, 2013 NPR that 

the modeling in the three States’ June 

2007 SIP revisions over predicted 2009 

predicted design values when compared 

to actual monitored design values since 

2009. Id. EPA compared the modeled 

design values to the actual design values 

based upon air quality data in Table 2, 

‘‘Modeled Predicted 2009 Design Values 

versus Actual Monitored Design 

Values’’ in the February 26, 2013 TSD. 

This comparison showed that the actual 

attainment year design values were 

below the model predicted values, but 

more significantly were below the 1997 

ozone NAAQS of 84 ppb.13

At the time EPA issued the March 20, 

2013 NPR, EPA did not have certified 

2012 or 2013 data. When EPA proposed 

in 2013 to approve the attainment 

demonstrations in the June 2007 SIP 

revisions, EPA considered the overall 

downward trend in monitored ozone air 

quality in the Washington Area and that 

the Area attained the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS by the attainment date 

applicable under section 181 of the 

CAA. While the 2010–2012 air quality 

design value does show an increase over 

the design values EPA previously 

considered, EPA continues to believe 

the air quality data for the Washington 

Area supports our approval of the June 

2007 SIP revisions as the 2011–2013 AQ 

data (and the 2012–2014 AQ data based 

upon the preliminary 2014 data) shows 

the Washington Area is attaining the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 

EPA agrees with the commenters that 

weather plays an important role in 

ozone formation. However, EPA 

believes that these considerations do not 

require EPA to disapprove the 

attainment demonstrations in the June 

2007 SIP revisions. None of the design 

values predicted in the modeling from 

the three States in the June 2007 SIP 

revisions were above 87 ppb. Therefore, 

as explained in the February 26, 2013 

TSD, a weight of evidence 

demonstration could be considered and 

was considered by EPA. The three 

States presented downward trends in 

design values (through 2006 as the 

States submitted the SIP in 2007), in 

numbers of exceedances, in nitrogen 

dioxide and carbon monoxide levels, 

and in emissions levels, as well as a 

decrease in the spatial extent of 

nonattainment in the Washington area 

and a decrease in the number of days 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS was exceeded 

when the maximum temperature 

exceeded 90 degrees Fahrenheit. For the 

proposed approval in the March 20, 

2013 NPR, EPA also considered 

monitored ozone design values for years 

after 2006 which declined from an areawide maximum 91 ppb for the 2004– 

2006 period to 80 ppb for the 2007–2009 

(the effective applicable attainment 

period). At best, EPA believes that a 

modeled attainment demonstration with 

a supporting weight of evidence 

demonstration is a prediction about 

future events. For attainment 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19214 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

14See ‘‘Guidance on the Use of Models and Other 

Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze,’’ 

EPA–454/B–07–002, dated April 2007 (2007 

Modeling Guidance for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional 

Haze), which is available at http://www.epa.gov/

scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rhguidance.pdf and is also included in the docket for 

this action and available online at 

www.regulations.gov in docket number EPA–R03– 

OAR–2013–0132. 

15See 2007 Modeling Guidance for Ozone, PM2.5,

and Regional Haze. 

16As noted previously, when an area does not 

attain by its applicable attainment date, the area is 

subject to reclassification or other provisions 

pursuant to section 182(b) of the CAA. 

17The 2007 Modeling Guidance for Ozone, PM2.5

and Regional Haze is included in the docket for this 

action as an attachment to docket item EPA–R03– 

OAR–2013–0132–0006. 

demonstrations, EPA has recommended 

using model predictions in a relative 

rather than absolute sense and using 

weight of evidence to lessen the 

problems posed by less than ideal 

model performance on individual days 

by anchoring the future predicted 

concentrations to real ambient values 

and to address associated uncertainties 

in model results and projections.14 In 

addition, EPA believes that the form of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

necessitates such an attainment test.15

In general, EPA does not consider the 

monitored ambient air quality data for 

periods after the attainment date to be 

particularly dispositive when acting on 

an attainment demonstration due under 

section 182(b). As explained previously 

in response to prior comments, EPA 

must approve a SIP submission such as 

an attainment SIP if the SIP submission 

meets applicable requirements in CAA 

sections 172 and 182. If an area does 

attain by its applicable attainment date, 

EPA has no authority to reclassify the 

area even if the area subsequently 

violates the ozone NAAQS.16 EPA 

believes this evinces a preference for 

actual air quality results over modeled 

predictions, and we believe that EPA 

must place great weight upon monitored 

attainment by the statutorily required 

attainment date when evaluating an 

attainment demonstration for 

compliance with CAA requirements. 

As noted in response to other 

comments, EPA believes that an 

attainment demonstration required 

under sections 172 and 182(b) need not 

demonstrate maintenance of the ozone 

NAAQS after the applicable attainment 

date and need only demonstrate timely 

attainment by the attainment date. 

While the commenters raise concerns 

for maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS based on the 2010–2012 design 

value for the Washington Area, the 

2011–2013 design values (and 

preliminary data for 2012–2014) show 

attainment with the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

as mentioned previously. EPA did not 

in the March 20, 2013 NPR propose any 

sort of finding regarding sufficiency of 

any state’s SIP with regards to 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

in the Washington Area. In addition, 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

is not a requirement for our approval of 

an attainment SIP required by CAA 

sections 172 and 182 as discussed 

previously in response to a prior 

comment and will be addressed in a 

separate SIP if the Washington Area 

seeks redesignation. 

Finally, EPA believes that section 

110(k)(5) provides a separate remedy, 

outside the scope of this rulemaking 

action, via a ‘‘SIP call’’ which provides 

the necessary authority to require 

remedial action through additional 

measures for a SIP where an ozone 

nonattainment area attains the ozone 

NAAQS by the applicable attainment 

date under section 181 but later violates 

that ozone NAAQS. See 64 FR 70205, 

70206 (December 16, 1999) (final SIP 

call rule for Birmingham, Alabama 

marginal 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

area to address inadequacy of a SIP) and 

79 FR 27830, 27832 (May 15, 2014) 

(proposed SIP call for the New YorkNew Jersey-Long Island moderate 1997 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area). 

Comment: EPA received a comment 

that it is arbitrary and capricious for the 

attainment demonstration modeling to 

only model for design values at 

monitoring stations. The commenter 

states that the whole metropolitan DC 

area is designated nonattainment, not 

just the tiny area covered by the 

monitoring stations. The commenter 

states that the NAAQS apply 

everywhere and that people are located 

throughout the Washington Area, not 

just at the monitoring stations. The 

commenter claims the model is capable 

of having a receptor grid that provides 

design values for the entire Washington 

Area and that by looking at design 

values at the monitoring station, EPA is 

deliberately ignoring an important 

aspect of the problem, that is whether 

the SIP provides people throughout the 

Washington Area with air that contains 

ozone below the health-based limit in 

the NAAQS. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

comment that it was arbitrary and 

capricious for the attainment 

demonstration modeling to only model 

for design values at monitoring stations 

and not for the entire Washington Area. 

The three States’ attainment 

demonstration modeling was in 

accordance with EPA’s 2007 Modeling 

Guidance for Ozone, PM2.5, and 

Regional Haze and considered 

appropriate data. As an initial matter, 

the performance of the air quality model 

used in a SIP submission can only be 

assessed by comparison of the model 

predicted ozone concentrations for the 

baseline year in the vicinity of any air 

quality monitors in place with the 

actual monitored ozone concentrations 

recorded at air quality monitors in place 

during the baseline year. EPA’s 2007 

Modeling Guidance for Ozone, PM2.5, 

and Regional Haze in section 2.0 

provides for using the modeling results 

in a relative sense, that is, the ratio, 

called a ‘‘relative response factor’’ 

(RRF), of the model’s future to current 

(baseline) predictions at monitors is 

used to determine if attainment is 

predicted.17 In section 2.4 of that 

guidance, EPA explained its reasons for 

using the models in a relative sense. 

These RRFs are used to estimate 

concentrations at existing monitoring 

sites by multiplying a modeled RRF at 

locations ‘‘near’’ each monitor by the 

observation-based, monitor-specific, 

‘‘baseline’’ design value. The resulting 

predicted ‘‘future concentrations’’ are 

compared to the NAAQS as part of the 

modeled attainment test and attainment 

demonstration. 

While the 2007 Modeling Guidance 

for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze 

recommends a test, the ‘‘unmonitored 

area analysis,’’ which provides 

estimates of future year values in 

unmonitored areas, the guidance notes 

this test is particularly needed in 

nonattainment areas where the ozone 

monitoring network just meets or 

minimally exceeds the size of the 

network required to report data to AQS. 

EPA asserts that the Washington Area’s 

monitoring network is not such a 

network. 

The air quality monitoring network in 

the Washington Area far exceeds the 

minimum required under 40 CFR part 

58. The Washington Area is part of the 

larger Washington-Arlington-Alexandria 

(DC–VA–MD–WV) Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (MSA) (known as the 

Washington-A–A MSA). Under Table 

D–2 of appendix D of 40 CFR part 58, 

the absolute minimum monitoring 

network for the Washington-A–A MSA 

based upon its population would be 3 

ozone monitors, but the Washington-A– 

A MSA in fact contains 15 ozone 

monitors of which 13 are in the 

designated nonattainment area. 

Consistent with the factors found in 

section 4.1(b) of appendix D of 40 CFR 

part 58, the additional monitors in the 

Washington Area are located based on a 

variety of reasons such as providing for 

more than one maximum concentration 

site within the MSA, characterizing 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19215 

18Additionally, the monitors in the Washington 

Area are located to measure areas of expected 

highest concentration downwind of urban cores, to 

‘‘background’’ concentrations entering an area, and 

to represent some spatial scale to reflect 

neighborhoods. 19The commenter also cites to ‘‘climate change’’ 

without any explanation, but EPA presumes it is 

being raised as part of the more general argument 

regarding meteorological variability. 

20Attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS is 

determined using a design value, which is the 3- 

year annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ozone concentrations at each monitoring 

location. For modeling for attainment 

demonstrations, EPA has concluded that modeled 

RRFs should be applied to an average of annual 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ozone concentrations including those of the 

baseline modeling year, which is 2002 for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS for the Washington Area. 

21EPA discusses RRFs in the 2007 Modeling 

Guidance for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze. EPA 

also discussed the use of RRFs in response to 

another comment in this rulemaking. 

22The May 23, 2007 plan document and the 

February 26, 2013 TSD are included in the docket 

for this rulemaking action and are available online 

at www.regulations.gov. 

23EPA used monitored design values based upon 

2001 to 2003 monitoring data to classify the 

Washington Area as moderate ozone nonattainment 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR 23858, 23864 

(April 30, 2004). 24EPA’s recommended method for determining 

baseline design value was to average the monitored 

design values determined for three successive 

periods: 2000 to 2002; 2001 to 2003, and 2002 to 

2004 which weights the 2002 data by a factor of 3, 

2001 and 2003 data each by a factor of 2, and 2000 

and 2004 data each by a factor of one. The last 

method computed a simple average of the annual 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ozone concentrations over the period 2000 through 

2004 (inclusive) which weights each year’s value 

equally. 

population exposure, and addressing 

factors including geographic size, 

population density, and complexity of 

terrain and meteorology in the MSA as 

well as air pollution transport.18 Given 

the extensive size and coverage of the 

Washington Area monitoring network 

and the factors considered for the size 

of the network, EPA disagrees with the 

comment that it was arbitrary and 

capricious for the attainment 

demonstration modeling to only model 

for design values at monitoring stations 

and not consider the entire Washington 

Area. The three States’ attainment 

demonstration modeling considered 

appropriate data from monitors in the 

Washington Area, which EPA reviewed 

in accordance with the 2007 Modeling 

Guidance for Ozone, PM2.5, and 

Regional Haze. EPA has explained in 

the March 20, 2013 NPR and in this 

rulemaking that the June 2007 SIP 

revisions including the attainment 

demonstration modeling meet CAA 

requirements for attainment plans in 

sections 172 and 182. 

Comment: EPA received comments 

that it is arbitrary and capricious to 

approve the attainment demonstrations 

in the June 2007 SIP revisions because, 

the commenter claims, the Area actually 

attained because of the ‘‘recession’’ or 

weather. A commenter also stated that 

recent 2010 and 2012 AQ data shows 

that 2009 was perhaps an ‘‘outlier year’’ 

with regards to ozone formation and 

that the attainment demonstration must 

model 2012 meteorological conditions 

(and not 2002 conditions), or model 

even warmer meteorological conditions 

to demonstrate that the emission limits 

and other nonattainment SIP provisions 

will attain the NAAQS. The commenter 

also stated that the attainment 

demonstration must consider climate 

change. 

Response: EPA disagrees that these 

comments provide a basis to disapprove 

the attainment demonstrations in the 

June 2007 SIP revisions. The 

overarching concerns that seem to be 

raised by the commenter are that 

meteorology less conducive to ozone 

formation in 2009 resulted in attainment 

and that the attainment demonstration 

did not adequately account for 

meteorological variability.19

First, meteorological variability is 

addressed in the form of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. In choosing the form of the 

1997 ozone NAAQS as the 3-year 

average of the fourth highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentration, the EPA Administrator 

adopted the Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee’s recommendation 

that ‘‘a more robust, concentrationbased form would minimize . . . 

instability and provide some insulation 

from the impacts of extreme 

meteorological events that are 

conducive to [ozone] formation.’’ See 62 

FR 38856, 38868 (July 18, 1997). The 

form of the 1997 ozone NAAQS is 

intended to minimize the effect of not 

only those years with more extreme 

meteorological events conducive to 

ozone formation but also those years 

with more meteorological events not 

conducive to ozone formation. Thus, 

EPA does not agree that meteorological 

conditions for any one year are the basis 

for an area meeting or not meeting the 

NAAQS. 

Second, EPA notes that as an adjunct 

to the modeled attainment 

demonstration, the three States did 

assess for the June 2007 SIP revisions 

the potential effects of meteorological 

variations on the results of the modeled 

attainment test. The future year modelpredicted ozone design value was 

determined by the three States by 

multiplying a baseline ozone design 

value derived from ambient air quality 

monitoring by the model-derived 

RRF.20 21 This future year modelpredicted ozone design value therefore 

directly depends upon the value of the 

baseline design value. The three States 

assessed the performance of air quality 

modeling by inputting meteorological 

data such as wind patterns and 

temperatures for 2002 and relevant 

emissions for 2002 and comparing the 

results to the actual monitored ozone 

concentrations for each day modeled. 

EPA believes that, in practice, the 

choice of the ‘‘baseline design value’’ 

can be critical to the determination of 

the estimated future year design values. 

EPA’s 2007 Modeling Guidance for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze noted 

several possible methods for computing 

a baseline design value and 

recommended using the average of the 

three design values for three successive 

three-year periods which include the 

baseline inventory year, which was 

2002 for the Washington Area. 

According to information in the June 

2007 SIP revisions, the three States were 

concerned that weighting the 2002 

concentrations three times in the 

calculation could place too much (or too 

little) weight on that individual year’s 

meteorology and would not necessarily 

reflect climate variability which has a 

significant impact on future design 

value projections. The three States used 

two additional methods for computing a 

baseline design value in order to assess 

the effect on future design value 

projections. These computations and the 

resulting future model-predicted 

attainment year design values are 

discussed in section 10.5.9 ‘‘Alternative 

Design Value Calculation Techniques’’ 

of the three States’ 2007 attainment 

demonstration plan document dated 

May 23, 2007 (hereafter the May 23, 

2007 plan document) and Section III. C. 

‘‘Weight of Evidence Demonstration’’ 

and Appendix A of the February 26, 

2013 TSD.22 For most, but not all, 

monitoring sites, a baseline design value 

computed as the 3-year average of the 

annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8- 

hour average ozone concentration over 

the period 2001 to 2003 produced the 

highest baseline design value for each 

monitor and therefore the highest future 

year model-predicted design value.23 24

By considering these alternate baseline 

design values, the three States assessed 

meteorological variability as reflected in 

ozone design values or other averaged 

annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8- 

hour average ozone concentrations that 

included monitoring data for the 2002 

baseline modeling year. 

Thus, EPA concludes the three States 

considered meteorological variability in 

conducting its attainment 

demonstrations, and we assessed the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19216 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

25The commenter also claims that attainment is 

due to ‘‘the recession,’’ but provides no support for 

this claim and therefore EPA provides no further 

response to the unsupported claim. 

26The May 23, 2007 plan document is included 

in the docket for this rulemaking action and is 

available online at www.regulations.gov. 

27See e.g. 69 FR at 23860 (‘‘In making 

designations and classifications, we use the most 

recent 3 years of monitoring data. Therefore, today’s 

designations and classifications are generally based 

on monitoring data collected in 2001–2003 

although other relevant years of data may have been 

used in certain circumstances’’). 

28These documents are provided in Appendix G 

of Attachment 2 of the May 23, 2007 plan document 

and docketed as document item ID# EPA–R03– 

OAR–2013–0132–0005 under ‘‘state submittal: 

Appendix G Attainment Modeling Demonstration 

and Documentation (Part 1)’’ in the docket for this 

rulemaking action. 

29See Attachment 2 to Appendix G and Chapter 

10 of the May 23, 2007 plan document which is 

docket item EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0132–0005 in 

the docket for this rulemaking action. 

30See the ozone monitor value reports for 2000 

through 2004 attached to the TSD Supplement or 

the column labeled ‘‘Annual 4th Highest 8-Hour 

Ozone (ppm)’’ in the table titled ‘‘Design Value— 

BY 2002’’ on page 1, Appendix G Attachment 11, 

of the May 23, 2007 plan document (the attachment 

titled ‘‘state submittal: Appendix G Attainment 

Modeling Demonstration and Documentation (Part 

4)’’ under document ID EPA–R03–OAR–2013– 

0132–0005 in the docket available at 

www.regulations.gov. 

31EPA believes that air quality monitoring data 

(number of exceedances or highest recorded values) 

cannot be used as a surrogate for meteorological 

conditions when comparing years after 2004 to 

years before 2004 because the NOX SIP call 

drastically reduced NOX emissions from EGUs in 

the years after 2004. See 75 FR 45210, 45214, 

columns 2 and 3 (August 2, 2010) (discussing the 

change in ozone air quality since the 2001–2003 

time period used to designate and classify 1997 

ozone nonattainment areas within the rulemaking 

for the NOX SIP call). 

32This does not preclude a State by its own 

choice from updating a previously submitted 

attainment demonstration. 

three States’ modeling when reviewing 

and proposing to approve the June 2007 

SIP revisions because the revisions meet 

CAA requirements. EPA therefore 

disagrees with the commenter that our 

approval of the attainment 

demonstrations is arbitrary or capricious 

because attainment of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS may have occurred due to 

influences from meteorological 

variability not otherwise addressed by 

the standard and the attainment 

demonstrations.25

Furthermore, to the extent the 

commenters are suggesting that the 

modeled attainment demonstration is 

defective because it was based on 2002 

meteorological conditions and not those 

from 2009 or a later year, EPA disagrees. 

Congress set explicit deadlines for 

submission of the attainment 

demonstration SIP due under section 

182(b)(1), and the attainment 

demonstrations for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS were required to be submitted 

by June 15, 2007. Thus, it was not 

feasible nor possible for the states to use 

meteorological conditions from future 

years for purposes of the attainment 

demonstration. 

The States’ choice of 2002 

meteorological conditions was 

inherently reasonable and is well 

supported in Chapter 10 and Appendix 

G of the three States’ May 23, 2007 plan 

document.26 EPA designated 

nonattainment areas for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS generally using 2001 to 2003 

AQ data. See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 

2004).27 Thus, the 2002 meteorological 

data represented meteorological 

conditions contemporaneous with the 

data used to designate and classify the 

Washington Area under the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. Moreover, the 2007 attainment 

demonstration was based upon 

modeling the entire 2002 ozone season. 

For that reason alone, it was reasonable 

for the States to rely on the 

meteorological data for the same year. 

However, the States supported their 

selection of 2002 meteorology based 

upon a qualitative analysis and a 

quantitative analysis.28 The quantitative 

analysis analyzed the entire Ozone 

Transport Region (OTR) and considered 

ozone and meteorological data for a 

seven year period (1997–2003) to 

capture the full range of OTR ozone 

episode characteristics and to insure 

statistical significance of the recent 

episode characteristics.29 The 

qualitative analysis describes each 2002 

high ozone episode in terms of the 

weather patterns (movement of warm or 

cold fronts, air movement patterns— 

speed and direction of wind), cloud 

cover, temperature patterns, and 

locations of higher and lower ozone 

concentrations for each episode day. 

The analysis of regional ozone episode 

conditions over the OTR concluded that 

regional ozone episode conditions can 

be reasonably well described by a set of 

five different episode types each 

associated with a unique set of 

distinguishing characteristics. Data from 

the 2002 ozone season were analyzed 

within the framework of the five 

identified episode types with respect to 

frequencies of occurrence of each type 

and characteristics of the ozone and 

meteorological conditions within each 

type in 2002. The analysis noted one 

difference between 2002 and the other 

years in that the frequency of 

exceedances of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

at one or more monitoring sites within 

the OTR occurred more frequently than 

the average of the other years, namely 

1997–2001 plus 2003. There were 71 

exceedance days during the May– 

September season in 2002 as compared 

to an average of 55 days per season 

during these other years. This analysis 

concluded that while ozone 

exceedances were more frequent during 

2002, this higher than average 

exceedance rate in 2002 is by itself not 

an indication of any lack of 

representativeness of the 2002 

exceedance events. In addition, not only 

did the 2002 ozone season have more 

days during which the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS was exceeded, but the fourth 

highest daily maximum values for the 

ozone monitors were higher during the 

2002 ozone season than in any of the 

years 2000 through 2004, inclusive. In 

this time period, monitored fourth 

highest daily maximum concentrations 

exceeded 100 ppb (0.100 ppm) only 

during 2002. Such values over 100 ppb 

were recorded at nine of 17 monitors 

then in operation.30 Such values of the 

fourth highest daily maximum 

concentrations have not been recorded 

since.31 EPA finds the States’ use of data 

from 2002 reasonable, well documented 

and supported. In contrast, the 

commenter has provided no support for 

the allegation that our approval of the 

attainment demonstrations is arbitrary 

or capricious based on the three States’ 

use of 2002 data for the attainment 

demonstration instead of a subsequent 

year. 

To the extent the commenters are 

suggesting that the States must remodel 

using meteorological conditions for 

years long after the 2007 submittal date 

(and after the attainment date), EPA 

notes that is neither mandated by the 

statute nor reasonable. Congress 

imposed deadlines on the States that 

clearly envisioned an end to the 

preparation of the attainment 

demonstration and did not establish any 

requirement for states to submit new, 

revised attainment demonstrations in 

the absence of a call from EPA pursuant 

to CAA section 110(k)(6) to do so or to 

submit a new attainment demonstration 

for a new, future attainment date based 

on a failure to attain by the attainment 

date.32

V. Final Action 

EPA is approving the attainment 

demonstrations, contingency measures, 

and associated 2009 and 2010 year 

MVEBs for the Washington Area which 

were submitted to EPA as SIP revisions 

by the three States in the June 2007 SIP 

revisions based on a determination that 

they meet applicable requirements in 

the CAA. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19217 

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 

approved SIP, 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. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this 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 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19218 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

circuit by June 9, 2015. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final rule does not affect the 

finality of this action for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action approving the 

attainment demonstrations, contingency 

measures, and associated 2009 and 2010 

year MVEBs for the Washington Area for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: March 13, 2015. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart J—District of Columbia 

■ 2. In § 52.470, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entries for 

Attainment Demonstration Contingency 

Measure Plan and 8-hour Ozone 

Modeled Demonstration of Attainment 

and Attainment Plan for the 1997 ozone 

national ambient air quality standards to 

reads as follows: 

§ 52.470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e)* * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision 

Applicable 

geographic 

area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Attainment Demonstration Contingency 

Measure Plan.

Washington, DCMD-VA 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment 

Area.

June 12, 2007 ...... 4/10/15 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

2010 motor vehicle emissions budgets 

of 144.3 tons per day (tpd) NOX. 

8-hour Ozone Modeled Demonstration 

of Attainment and Attainment Plan 

for the 1997 ozone national ambient 

air quality standards.

Washington, DCMD-VA 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment 

Area.

June 12, 2007 ...... 4/10/15 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

2009 motor vehicle emissions budgets 

of 66.5 tons per day (tpd) for VOC 

and 146.1 tpd of NOX. 

■ 3. Section 52.476 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.476 Control strategy: ozone. 

* * * * * 

(h) EPA approves revisions to the 

District of Columbia State 

Implementation Plan consisting of the 

attainment demonstration required 

under 40 CFR 51.908 demonstrating 

attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

by the applicable attainment date of 

June 15, 2010 and the failure to attain 

contingency measures for the 

Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8-hour 

ozone moderate nonattainment area 

submitted by the Acting Director of the 

District of Columbia Department of the 

Environment on June 12, 2007. 

(i) EPA approves the following 2009 

attainment demonstration and 2010 

motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs) for the Washington, DC-MDVA 1997 8-hour ozone moderate 

nonattainment area submitted by the 

Acting Director of the District of 

Columbia Department of the 

Environment on June 12, 2007: 

TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR THE WASHINGTON, DC-MD-VA AREA

Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOX (TPD) Effective date of adequacy determination or 

SIP approval 

Attainment Demonstration ............ 2009 66.5 146.1 February 22, 2013 (78 FR 9044), published 

February 7, 2013. 

Contingency Measures Plan ......... 2010 .............................. 144.3 February 22, 2013 (78 FR 9044), published 

February 7, 2013. 

Subpart V—Maryland 

■ 4. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entries for 

Attainment Demonstration Contingency 

Measure Plan and 8-hour Ozone 

Modeled Demonstration of Attainment 

and Attainment Plan for the 1997 ozone 

national ambient air quality standards . 

The added text reads as follows: 

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 19219 

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision 

Applicable 

geographic 

area 

State submittal 

date EPA Approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Attainment Demonstration Contingency 

Measure Plan.

Washington, DCMD-VA 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment 

Area.

June 4, 2007 ........ 4/10/15 [Insert 

Federal Register citation].

2010 motor vehicle emissions budgets 

of 144.3 tons per day (tpd) NOX. 

8-hour Ozone Modeled Demonstration 

of Attainment and Attainment Plan 

for the 1997 ozone national ambient 

air quality standards.

Washington, DCMD-VA 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment 

Area.

June 4, 2007 ........ 4/10/15 [Insert 

Federal Register citation].

2009 motor vehicle emissions budgets 

of 66.5 tons per day (tpd) for VOC 

and 146.1 tpd of NOX. 

■ 5. Section 52.1076 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (aa) and (bb) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.1076 Control strategy plans for 

attainment and rate-of-progress: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(aa) EPA approves revisions to the 

Maryland State Implementation Plan 

consisting of the attainment 

demonstration required under 40 CFR 

51.908 demonstrating attainment of the 

1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date of June 15, 2010 and the 

failure to attain contingency measures 

for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8- 

hour ozone moderate nonattainment 

area submitted by the Secretary of the 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment on June 4, 2007. 

(bb) EPA approves the following 2009 

attainment demonstration and 2010 

motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs) for the Washington, DC– 

MDVA 1997 8-hour ozone moderate 

nonattainment area submitted by the 

Secretary of the Maryland Department 

of the Environment on June 4, 2007: 

TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR THE WASHINGTON, DC-MD-VA AREA

Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOX (TPD) Effective date of adequacy determination or 

SIP approval 

Attainment Demonstration ............ 2009 66.5 146.1 February 22, 2013 (78 FR 9044), published 

February 7, 2013. 

Contingency Measures Plan ......... 2010 .............................. 144.3 February 22, 2013 (78 FR 9044), published 

February 7, 2013. 

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 6. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entries for 

Attainment Demonstration Contingency 

Measure Plan and 8-hour Ozone 

Modeled Demonstration of Attainment 

and Attainment Plan for the 1997 ozone 

national ambient air quality standards to 

reads as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision 

Applicable 

geographic 

area 

State submittal 

date EPA Approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Attainment Demonstration Contingency 

Measure Plan.

Washington, DCMD-VA 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment 

Area.

June 12, 2007 ...... 4/10/15 [Insert 

Federal Register citation].

2010 motor vehicle emissions budgets 

of 144.3 tons per day (tpd) NOX. 

8-hour Ozone Modeled Demonstration 

of Attainment and Attainment Plan 

for the 1997 ozone national ambient 

air quality standards.

Washington, DCMD-VA 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment 

Area.

June 12, 2007 ...... 4/10/15 [Insert 

Federal Register citation].

2009 motor vehicle emissions budgets 

of 66.5 tons per day (tpd) for VOC 

and 146.1 tpd of NOX. 

■ 7. Section 52.2428 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (j) and (k) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2428 Control Strategy: Carbon 

monoxide and ozone. 

* * * * * 

(j) EPA approves revisions to the 

Virginia State Implementation Plan 

consisting of the attainment 

demonstration required under 40 CFR 

51.908 demonstrating attainment of the 

1997 ozone NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date of June 15, 2010 and the 

failure to attain contingency measures 

for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 8- 

hour ozone moderate nonattainment 

area submitted by the Director of the 

Virginia Department of Environment 

Quality on June 12, 2007. 

(k) EPA approves the following 2009 

attainment demonstration and 2010 

motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs) for the Washington, DC– 

MDVA 1997 8-hour ozone moderate 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19220 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1 79 FR 56322. Please refer to that notice of 

proposed rulemaking for background information 

concerning the CAA, the RHR and the Arizona 

Regional Haze SIP and FIP. 

nonattainment area submitted by the Director of the Virginia Department of 

Environment Quality on June 12, 2007: 

TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR THE WASHINGTON, DC-MD-VA AREA

Type of control strategy SIP Year VOC (TPD) NOX (TPD) Effective date of adequacy determination or 

SIP approval 

Attainment Demonstration ............ 2009 66.5 146.1 February 22, 2013 (78 FR 9044), published 

February 7, 2013. 

Contingency Measures Plan ......... 2010 .............................. 144.3 February 22, 2013 (78 FR 9044), published 

February 7, 2013. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07957 Filed 4–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0647; FRL–9923–88– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Regional Haze State and Federal 

Implementation Plans; 

Reconsideration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a sourcespecific revision to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) that 

establishes an alternative to best 

available retrofit technology (BART) for 

Steam Units 2 and 3 (ST2 and ST3) at 

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative’s 

(AEPCO) Apache Generating Station 

(Apache). Under the BART Alternative, 

ST2 will be converted from a primarily 

coal-fired unit to a unit that combusts 

pipeline-quality natural gas, while ST3 

will remain as a coal-fired unit and 

would be retrofitted with selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) control 

technology. The SIP revision also 

revises the emission limit for nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) applicable to Apache 

Steam Unit 1 (ST1), when it is operated 

in combined-cycle mode with Gas 

Turbine 1 (GT1). EPA has determined 

that the BART Alternative for ST2 and 

ST3 would provide greater reasonable 

progress toward natural visibility 

conditions than BART, in accordance 

with the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) and EPA’s Regional Haze 

Rule (RHR). Accordingly, we are 

approving all elements of the SIP 

revision, with the exception of a 

provision pertaining to affirmative 

defenses for malfunctions. In 

conjunction with this final approval, we 

are withdrawing those portions of the 

Arizona Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP) that address BART for Apache. 

DATES: Effective date: This rule is 

effective May 11, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0647 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket are available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. Please 

note that while many of the documents 

in the docket are listed at http://

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may not be specifically listed in the 

index to the docket and may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, 

multi-volume reports, or otherwise 

voluminous materials), and some may 

not be available at either locations (e.g., 

confidential business information). To 

inspect the hard copy materials, please 

schedule an appointment during normal 

business hours with the contact listed 

directly below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 

Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105. Thomas Webb may be reached at 

telephone number (415) 947–4139 and 

via electronic mail at webb.thomas@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

• The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

• The initials ADEQ mean or refer to 

the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality. 

• The initials AEPCO mean or refer to 

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative. 

• The words Arizona and State mean 

the State of Arizona. 

• The initials BART mean or refer to 

Best Available Retrofit Technology. 

• The initials CEMS mean or refer to 

a continuous emissions monitoring 

system. 

• The term Class I area refers to a 

mandatory Class I Federal area. 

• The words EPA, we, us, or our mean 

or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

• The initials FIP mean or refer to 

Federal Implementation Plan. 

• The initials GT1 mean or refer to 

Gas Turbine Unit 1. 

• The initials IWAQM mean or refer 

to Interagency Workgroup on Air 

Quality Modeling. 

• The initials LNB mean or refer to 

low-NOX burners. 

• The initials MMBtu mean or refer to 

million British thermal units 

• The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

• The initials PM10 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 10 micrometers. 

• The initials RHR mean or refer to 

EPA’s Regional Haze Rule. 

• The initials SNCR mean or refer to 

Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction. 

• The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

• The initials SO2 mean or refer to 

sulfur dioxide. 

• The initials ST1 mean or refer to 

Steam Unit 1. 

• The initials ST2 mean or refer to 

Steam Unit 2. 

• The initials ST3 mean or refer to 

Steam Unit 3. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. Final Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On September 19, 2014, EPA 

proposed to approve a revision to the 

Arizona Regional Haze SIP concerning 

Apache Generating Station (‘‘Apache 

SIP Revision’’).1 As described in the 

proposal, the Apache SIP Revision 

consists of two components: a BART 

alternative for ST2 and ST3 (‘‘Apache 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES