Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 75035 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0281; FRL–9920–42– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Redesignation Request and 

Associated Maintenance Plan for the 

Maryland Portion of the MartinsburgHagerstown, WV-MD Nonattainment 

Area for the 1997 Annual Fine 

Particulate Matter Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the State of 

Maryland’s request to redesignate to 

attainment the Maryland portion of the 

Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV-MD 

Nonattainment Area (Martinsburg Area 

or Area) for the 1997 annual fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

The Maryland portion of the 

Martinsburg Area is comprised of 

Washington County, Maryland. EPA has 

found that the Martinsburg Area 

attained the standard and continues to 

attain the standard. In addition, EPA is 

approving, as a revision to the Maryland 

State Implementation Plan (SIP), the 

Washington County maintenance plan 

to show maintenance of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025 for the 

Maryland portion of the Area. The 

maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 

2025 PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

mobile vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs) for Washington County, 

Maryland for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, which EPA is proposing to 

approve for transportation conformity 

purposes. These actions are being taken 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 16, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0281. 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 Maryland Department of 

the Environment, Air and Radiation 

Management Administration, 1800 

Washington Boulevard, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marilyn Powers at (215) 814–2308, or by 

email at powers.marilyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On December 12, 2013, the State of 

Maryland, through the Maryland 

Department of the Environment (MDE), 

formally submitted a request to 

redesignate the Maryland portion of the 

Martinsburg Area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. Concurrently, MDE submitted 

a maintenance plan for Washington 

County as a SIP revision to ensure 

continued attainment throughout the 

Maryland portion of the Area over the 

next 10 years. In addition, the 

maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 

2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs used for 

transportation conformity purposes for 

Washington County, Maryland for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard. 

On August 21, 2014 (79 FR 49474), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of 

Maryland. In the NPR, EPA proposed 

approval of Maryland’s redesignation 

request for its portion of the 

Martinsburg Area for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also proposed 

approval of the associated maintenance 

plan as a SIP revision for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, which includes 

the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX

MVEBs for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS for purposes of transportation 

conformity. 

In the August 21, 2014 NPR, EPA 

explains that the redesignation of this 

Area does not rely on either the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) or the Cross 

State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for 

maintenance. However, EPA notes here 

the changed status of CSAPR since the 

publication of the NPR on August 21, 

2014. As discussed in the NPR, on April 

29, 2014, the Supreme Court vacated 

and reversed the D.C. Circuit Court’s 

decision regarding CSAPR and 

remanded that decision to the D.C. 

Circuit Court to resolve remaining 

issues in accordance with its ruling. 

EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). In light of 

the April 29, 2014 Supreme Court 

decision, on June 26, 2014, EPA moved 

to have the D.C. Circuit Court’s 

December 30, 2011 stay of CSAPR lifted. 

EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. 

EPA, Case No. 11–1302, Document No. 

1499505 (D.C. Cir. filed June 26, 2014). 

On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit 

Court granted EPA’s motion and lifted 

the stay of CSAPR which was imposed 

on December 30, 2011. EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302 

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

The details of Maryland’s submittal 

and the rationale for EPA’s proposed 

actions are explained in the NPR and 

will not be restated here. EPA received 

one adverse comment from Mr. Robert 

Ukeiley, representing the Law Office of 

Robert Ukeiley. 

Comment: Mr. Ukeiley contends that 

EPA cannot approve the redesignation 

request until PM2.5 increments are fully 

approved into Maryland’s SIP— 

approved Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program, and that 

without these increments, Maryland 

does not have a fully approved relevant 

SIP and does not have an adequate 

maintenance plan. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that EPA’s pending action 

on Maryland’s PM2.5 PSD increments 

presents an obstacle to redesignating the 

Maryland portion of the Martinsburg 

nonattainment area. The commenter has 

not specified which provisions of the 

Clean Air Act he thinks are not being 

met in this redesignation action, but 

states only that ‘‘without the 

increments, Maryland does not have a 

fully approved relevant SIP.’’ EPA 

assumes that the commenter is referring 

to the requirements of Clean Air Act 

sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v), which 

require that the Administrator has fully 

approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

section 110(k), and that the state 

containing the nonattainment area has 

met all requirements applicable to the 

area under CAA section 110 and part D. 

As stated in the NPR, EPA has long 

interpreted the term ‘‘applicable’’ in 

these two provisions to mean only those 

requirements that are linked to a 

particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification. See 79 

FR 49482 (August 21, 2014). As is the 

case with other requirements which 

remain applicable to an area after 

redesignation, the requirements of a 

PSD program, which apply only to 

attainment areas, need not be fully 

approved in order for a nonattainment 

area to be redesignated to attainment 

under sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) 

because they are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of those 

provisions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

75036 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA also disagrees that pending 

action on Maryland’s PSD increments 

into its approved PSD program means 

that Maryland does not have an 

adequate maintenance plan under CAA 

section 175A. Maryland has an EPAapproved PSD program that includes 

PM2.5 as a regulated new source review 

(NSR) pollutant. Therefore, any increase 

in direct PM2.5 emissions or emissions 

of its precursors (sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

and NOX) planned by a new source or 

from a modified source will trigger the 

requirements to obtain a PSD permit; to 

perform an air quality analysis that 

demonstrates that the proposed source 

or modification will not cause or 

contribute to a violation of the PM2.5

NAAQS; and to apply best available 

control technology (BACT) for PM2.5. 

The commenter is correct that EPA has 

not yet taken action on Maryland’s 

August 22, 2013 submission of proposed 

PM2.5 increments for approval into the 

Maryland SIP. EPA is currently in the 

process of taking action on this 

submission. However, the absence of 

PM2.5 increments from Maryland’s PSD 

program does not prevent the program 

from addressing and helping to assure 

maintenance of the PM2.5 standard in 

accordance with CAA section 175A. A 

PSD increment is the maximum increase 

in concentration that is allowed to occur 

above a baseline concentration for a 

pollutant, but the level of the increment 

can never exceed the NAAQS. 

Therefore, even in the absence of an 

approved PSD increment, Maryland’s 

PSD program prohibits air quality from 

deteriorating beyond the concentration 

allowed by the applicable NAAQS. See 

COMAR 26.11.06.14—General 

Emissions Standards, Prohibitions, and 

Restrictions—Control of PSD Sources. 

Thus, Maryland’s PSD program is 

adequate for purposes of assuring 

maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard as required by section 175A. 

For the reasons explained above, EPA 

concludes that the features of the PSD 

program in Maryland’s SIP do not 

detract from the program’s adequacy for 

purposes of maintenance of the standard 

and redesignation of the Area. It is, 

therefore, sufficient for the purposes of 

maintaining the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS in the Maryland portion of the 

Martinsburg Area. 

II. Final Action 

EPA is taking final action on the 

redesignation request and SIP revision 

submitted by the State of Maryland, on 

December 12, 2013, for the Maryland 

portion of the Martinsburg Area for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

approving Maryland’s redesignation 

request for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, because EPA has determined 

that the request meets the redesignation 

criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) 

of the CAA for this standard. EPA is 

approving the associated maintenance 

plan for the Maryland portion of the 

Area as a revision to the Maryland SIP 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

because it meets the requirements of 

section 175A of the CAA. EPA is also 

approving the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and 

NOX MVEBs submitted by Maryland for 

Washington County for transportation 

conformity purposes. Approval of this 

redesignation request will change the 

official designation of the Maryland 

portion of the Martinsburg Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), 

EPA finds there is good cause for this 

action to become effective immediately 

upon publication. A delayed effective 

date is unnecessary due to the nature of 

a redesignation to attainment, which 

eliminates CAA obligations that would 

otherwise apply. The immediate 

effective date for this action is 

authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(1), which provides that 

rulemaking actions may become 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication if the rule ‘‘grants or 

recognizes an exemption or relieves a 

restriction,’’ and section 553(d)(3), 

which allows an effective date less than 

30 days after publication ‘‘as otherwise 

provided by the agency for good cause 

found and published with the rule.’’ 

The purpose of the 30-day waiting 

period prescribed in section 553(d) is to 

give affected parties a reasonable time to 

adjust their behavior and prepare before 

the final rule takes effect. Today’s rule, 

however, does not create any new 

regulatory requirements such that 

affected parties would need time to 

prepare before the rule takes effect. 

Rather, today’s rule relieves the State of 

Maryland of the obligation to comply 

with nonattainment-related planning 

requirements for the Maryland portion 

of the Area pursuant to Part D of the 

CAA and approves certain emissions 

inventories and MVEBs for the 

Maryland portion of the Area. For these 

reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 

U.S.C. 553(d) for this action to become 

effective on the date of publication of 

this notice. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of the 

maintenance plan under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

required by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

impose any new requirements, but 

rather results in the application of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 75037 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by February 17, 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 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan for the Maryland portion of the 

Martinsburg Area for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, may not be challenged 

later in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements. See section 307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: December 3, 2014. 

William C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are 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 V—Maryland 

■ 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding an entry for 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance 

Plan, Maryland portion of the 

Martinsburg, WV-MD Area to the end of 

the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision Applicable geographic area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

1997 Annual fine particulate 

(PM2.5) Maintenance Plan for 

the Maryland portion of the 

Martinsburg WV-Hagerstown, MD Area.

Washington County ................ 12/12/13 12/16/14 [Insert Federal Register Citation].See § 52.2526(k) and 

§ 52.2531(h). 

■ 3. Section 52.1081 is amended by 

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1081 Control strategy: Particular 

matter. 

* * * * * 

(f) Maintenance Plan and 

Transportation Conformity Budgets. 

EPA approves the maintenance plan for 

the Maryland portion of the 

Martinsburg, WV-Hagerstown, MD 

nonattainment area for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS submitted by the State of 

Maryland on December 12, 2013. The 

maintenance plan includes motor 

vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) to be 

applied to all future transportation 

conformity determinations and analyses 

for the Maryland portion of the 

Martinsburg, WV-Hagerstown, MD Area 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

MARYLAND PORTION OF THE MARTINSBURG, WV-HAGERSTOWN, MD AREA’S MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR

THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS, (TPY) 

Type of control strategy SIP Year NOX PM2.5

Effective date 

of SIP 

approval 

Maintenance Plan .............................................................................................................. 2017 

2025 

4,057.00 

2,774.63 

149.63 

93.35 

12/16/14 

PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS 

FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

PURPOSES 

■ 4. The authority citation for Part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 5. In § 81.321 the table ‘‘Maryland— 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS’’ is 

amended by revising the entry for the 

Martinsburg, WV-Hagerstown, MD Area 

to read as follows: 

§ 81.321 Maryland. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

75038 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

MARYLAND—1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS 

[Primary and secondary] 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date1 Type Date2 Type 

*******

Martinsburg, WV-Hagerstown, MD: 

Washington County ................................................................................................... 12/16/14 Attainment 

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted. 

2This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–29336 Filed 12–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3