Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39019 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 24, 2018. 

Michael Stoker, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16795 Filed 8–7–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215; FRL–9981– 

75—Region 3] 

Air Plan Approval; District of 

Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 

Maryland and Virginia Redesignation 

Requests and District of Columbia, 

Maryland, and Virginia Maintenance 

Plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 

2008 Ozone Standard Nonattainment 

Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the requests from the State of Maryland 

(Maryland) and the Commonwealth of 

Virginia (Virginia) to redesignate to 

attainment their respective portions of 

the Washington, DC-MD-VA 

nonattainment area (hereafter ‘‘the 

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

2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS or standard) 

(also referred to as the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS). EPA is not proposing to 

approve the redesignation request for 

the District of Columbia (the District) for 

its portion of the Area; EPA will address 

the District’s redesignation request for 

its portion of the Area in a separate 

rulemaking action. EPA is also 

proposing to approve, as a revision to 

the District’s, Maryland’s, and Virginia’s 

state implementation plans (SIPs), the 

joint maintenance plan submitted by the 

District, Maryland, and Virginia. The 

joint maintenance plan demonstrates 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

through 2030 in the Washington Area. 

Approval of a maintenance plan is 

among the CAA criteria for 

redesignation to attainment, as 

discussed in more detail in this notice. 

The Washington Area maintenance plan 

includes motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 

which are precursors to ozone. EPA has 

found the MVEBs adequate and is 

proposing to approve, as a SIP revision, 

these 2014, 2025, and 2030 NOX and 

VOC MVEBs for the Washington Area. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 7, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2018–0215 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

confidential business information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Calcinore, (215) 814–2043, or by email 

at calcinore.sara@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing? 

II. What is the background for these proposed 

actions? 

III. What are the criteria for redesignation? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Maryland’s and 

Virginia’s redesignation requests for the 

Washington Area? 

A. Has the Washington Area attained the 

2008 ozone NAAQS? 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
39020 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1EPA originally informed the District, Maryland, 

and Virginia that the 2014, 2025, and 2030 MVEBs 

were adequate for use in transportation conformity 

analyses in letters dated July 18, 2018. EPA revised 

language in these letters and sent the revised letters 

to the District, Maryland, and Virginia on July 24, 

2018. The original and revised letters are available 

online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: 

EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215. 

B. Have Maryland and Virginia met all 

applicable requirements of section 110 

and part D of the CAA for the 

Washington Area and does the 

Washington Area have a fully approved 

SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA? 

C. Are the air quality improvements in the 

Washington Area due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions? 

D. Do the District, Maryland, and Virginia 

have fully approvable ozone 

maintenance plans for the Washington 

Area? 

V. Have the District, Maryland, and Virginia 

adopted approvable MVEBs? 

A. What are the MVEBs? 

B. What is the status of EPA’s adequacy 

determination for the proposed 2025 and 

2030 VOC and NOX MVEBs for the 

Washington Area? 

C. What is a safety margin and how was 

it allocated? 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. General Information Pertaining to SIP 

Submittals From the Commonwealth of 

Virginia 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What are the actions EPA is 

proposing? 

On March 12, 2018, January 29, 2018, 

and January 3, 2018, the District, 

Maryland, and Virginia, respectively, 

formally submitted a request to 

redesignate their portions of the 

Washington Area from marginal 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. Concurrently, the 

District, Maryland, and Virginia 

formally submitted, as a revision to their 

respective SIPs, a joint maintenance 

plan for the Washington Area to ensure 

continued attainment for at least 10 

years following redesignation. The 

maintenance plan includes MVEBs for 

NOX and VOC for the years 2014, 2025, 

and 2030. Pursuant to CAA section 

107(d)(3), in this rulemaking action, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

redesignation requests submitted by 

Maryland and Virginia for their portions 

of the Washington Area. EPA is not 

proposing to approve (at this time) the 

redesignation request from the District 

and will act on the District’s 

redesignation request for its portion of 

the Area in a separate action. EPA is 

also proposing to approve, as revisions 

to the District’s, Maryland’s, and 

Virginia’s SIPs, the joint maintenance 

plan submitted by the District, 

Maryland, and Virginia. 

EPA is proposing to take several 

related actions. EPA is proposing to 

determine that Maryland and Virginia 

have met the requirements for 

redesignation for their respective 

portions of the Washington Area 

pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 

CAA. EPA is therefore proposing to 

approve Maryland’s and Virginia’s 

redesignation requests and change the 

designation of their respective portions 

of the Washington Area from marginal 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is also 

proposing to approve, as revisions to the 

District’s, Maryland’s, and Virginia’s 

SIPs, the joint Washington Area 

maintenance plan that was prepared by 

the Metropolitan Washington Council of 

Governments (MWCOG) and jointly 

submitted by the District, Maryland, and 

Virginia. The maintenance plan is 

designed to ensure continued 

attainment in the Washington Area for 

the next ten years. Additionally, EPA 

has found the submitted MVEBs 

adequate and is proposing to approve, 

as revisions to the District’s, Maryland’s, 

and Virginia’s SIPs, the 2014, 2025, and 

2030 MVEBs for NOX and VOC for the 

Washington Area that are identified in 

the Washington Area maintenance plan. 

The adequacy comment period for the 

MVEBs began on May 21, 2018, with 

EPA’s posting of the availability of the 

District’s, Maryland’s, and Virginia’s 

maintenance plan submittal on EPA’s 

Adequacy website (at https://

www.epa.gov/state-and-localtransportation). The adequacy comment 

period for these MVEBs ended on June 

20, 2018. EPA did not receive any 

adverse comments on this submittal 

during the adequacy comment period. 

In letters dated July 24, 2018, EPA 

informed the District, Maryland, and 

Virginia that the 2014, 2025, and 2030 

MVEBs are adequate for use in 

transportation conformity analyses.1

Please see section V.B., ‘‘What Is the 

Status of EPA’s Adequacy 

Determination for the Proposed NOX

and VOC MVEBs for the Washington 

Area?’’, of this rulemaking for further 

explanation of this process. 

II. What is the background for these 

proposed actions? 

Under the CAA, EPA establishes 

NAAQS for criteria pollutants in order 

to protect human health and the 

environment. In response to scientific 

evidence linking ozone exposure to 

adverse health effects, EPA promulgated 

the first ozone NAAQS, the 0.12 part per 

million (ppm) 1-hour ozone NAAQS, in 

1979. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 

1979). The CAA requires EPA to review 

and reevaluate the NAAQS every 5 

years in order to consider updated 

information regarding the effects of the 

criteria pollutants on human health and 

the environment. On July 18, 1997, EPA 

promulgated a revised ozone NAAQS, 

referred to as the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

of 0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours. 

62 FR 38855. This 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

was determined to be more protective of 

public health than the previous 1979 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS. In 2008, EPA 

strengthened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

from 0.08 to 0.075 ppm. The 0.075 ppm 

standard is referred to as the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 

2008). 

Upon promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, section 107(d)(1)(B) of 

the CAA requires EPA to designate as 

nonattainment any areas that are 

violating the NAAQS based on the most 

recent three years of quality-assured 

ozone monitoring data. On May 21, 

2012 and June 11, 2012, EPA designated 

nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 77 FR 30088 and 77 FR 34221. 

Effective July 20, 2012, the Washington 

Area was designated as marginal 

nonattainment for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. The Washington Area consists 

of the Counties of Calvert, Charles, 

Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince 

George’s in Maryland, the Counties of 

Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince 

William and the Cities of Alexandria, 

Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and 

Manassas Park Cities in Virginia, and 

the District of Columbia. See 40 CFR 

81.309, 81.321, and 81.347. 

As stated previously, on March 12, 

2018, January 29, 2018, and January 3, 

2018, the District, Maryland, and 

Virginia, respectively, formally 

submitted requests to redesignate their 

respective portions of the Washington 

Area from marginal nonattainment to 

attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

The District, Maryland, and Virginia 

concurrently submitted, as revisions to 

their SIPs, a maintenance plan for the 

Washington Area to ensure continued 

attainment for at least 10 years 

following redesignation. In this 

rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to 

approve the redesignation requests 

submitted by Maryland and Virginia for 

their respective portions of the Area. 

EPA is not proposing to approve the 

redesignation request for the District for 

its portion and will act on the 

redesignation request for the District in 

a separate action. EPA is also proposing 

to approve, as revisions to the District’s, 

Maryland’s, and Virginia’s SIPs, the 

maintenance plan jointly submitted by 

the District, Maryland, and Virginia. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39021 

2The rounding convention under 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix P dictates that concentrations shall be 

reported in ppm to the third decimal place, with 

additional digits to the right of the third decimal 

place truncated. Thus, a computed three-year 

average ozone concentration of 0.0759 ppm or 

lower would meet the standard, but 0.0760 ppm or 

higher would be over the standard. 

3The ozone season is defined by state in 40 CFR 

58 appendix D. For the 2013–2015 time period, the 

ozone season was April–October for the states in 

the Area. Beginning in 2016, the ozone season is 

March–October for the states in the Washington 

Area. See 80 FR 65292, 65466–67 (October 26, 

2015). 

4 In a final rule published on May 21, 2012 and 

effective July 20, 2012, EPA established the air 

quality thresholds that define the classification 

assigned to all nonattainment areas for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS (the Classifications Rule). See 77 FR 

30160. This rulemaking also established December 

31 of each relevant calendar year as the attainment 

date for all nonattainment area classification 

categories. Section 181 of the CAA provides that the 

attainment deadline for ozone nonattainment area 

is ‘‘as expeditiously as practicable’’ but no later 

than the prescribed dates that are provided in Table 

1 of that section. In the Classifications Rule, EPA 

translated the deadlines in Table 1 of CAA section 

181 for purposes of the 2008 standard by measuring 

those deadlines from the effective date of the new 

designations, but extended those deadlines by 

several months to December 31 of the 

corresponding calendar year. Pursuant to a 

challenge of EPA’s interpretation of the attainment 

deadlines, on December 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit 

issued a decision rejecting, among other things, the 

Classifications Rule’s attainment deadlines for the 

2008 ozone nonattainment areas, finding that EPA 

did not have statutory authority under the CAA to 

extend those deadlines to the end of the calendar 

year. NRDC v. EPA, 777 F .3d 456, 464–69 (D.C. Cir. 

2014). 

5On February 16, 2018, the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Cir. Court) issued an opinion on the SIP 

Requirements Rule. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. 

Dist. v. EPA, No. 15–1115 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 16, 2018). 

The D.C. Cir. Court found certain provisions from 

the SIP Requirements Rule unreasonable including 

EPA’s provision for a ‘‘redesignation substitute.’’ 

The D.C. Cir. Court vacated these provisions and 

found redesignations must comply with all required 

elements in CAA section 107(d)(3) and thus found 

the ‘‘redesignation substitute’’ which did not 

require all items in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) 

violated the CAA and was thus unreasonable. The 

Continued 

III. What are the criteria for 

redesignation? 

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA 

allows redesignation of an area to 

attainment of the NAAQS provided that: 

(1) The Administrator (EPA) determines 

that the area has attained the applicable 

NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully 

approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the 

Administrator determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP, 

applicable federal air pollutant control 

regulations, and other permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions; (4) the 

Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA; and (5) the State 

containing the area has met all 

requirements applicable to the area for 

purposes of redesignation under section 

110 and part D of the CAA. 

On April 16, 1992, EPA provided 

guidance on redesignations in the 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498) and 

supplemented this guidance on April 

28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has 

provided further guidance on processing 

redesignation requests in the following 

documents: 

1. ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design 

Value Calculations,’’ Memorandum from 

Bill Laxton, Director, Technical Support 

Division, June 18, 1990; 

2. ‘‘Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of 

Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum 

from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon 

Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 

1992; 

3. ‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,’’ 

Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 

Branch, June 1, 1992; 

4. ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, September 4, 1992 (the 

‘‘Calcagni memorandum’’); 

5. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions 

Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act 

(CAA) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from 

John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, October 28, 1992; 

6. ‘‘Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for 

Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,’’ 

Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, 

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 

Branch, August 17, 1993; 

7. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum from 

Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993 (the ‘‘Shapiro 

memorandum’’); 

8. ‘‘Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance 

Demonstrations for Ozone and CO 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ Memorandum 

from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, 

November 30, 1993; 

9. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment,’’ 

Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, October 14, 1994; and 

10. ‘‘Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment 

Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ 

Memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, May 10, 1995. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Maryland’s and Virginia’s 

redesignation requests for the 

Washington Area? 

A. Has the Washington Area attained 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS? 

For redesignation of a nonattainment 

area to attainment, the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the area has 

attained the applicable NAAQS. See 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i). An area is 

attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS if it 

meets the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as 

determined in accordance with 40 CFR 

50.15 and appendix P of part 50, based 

on three complete, consecutive calendar 

years of quality-assured air quality data 

for all monitoring sites in the area. To 

attain the NAAQS, the three-year 

average of the annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations, referred to as ozone 

design values, at each monitor must not 

exceed 0.075 ppm.2 The air quality data 

must be collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and 

recorded in EPA’s Air Quality System 

(AQS). Ambient air quality monitoring 

data for the 3-year period must also 

meet data completeness requirements. 

An ozone design value is valid if daily 

maximum 8-hour average 

concentrations are available for at least 

90 percent of the days within the ozone 

monitoring season,3 on average, for the 

three-year period, with a minimum data 

completeness of 75 percent during the 

ozone monitoring season of any year 

during the three-year period. See section 

2.3 of appendix P to 40 CFR part 50. 

As part of the final rule, 

‘‘Implementation of the 2008 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Ozone: State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements,’’ for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015) 

(hereinafter, SIP Requirements Rule), 

EPA modified the maximum attainment 

dates for all nonattainment areas for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS to be consistent 

with the United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit’s 

(D.C. Circuit) decision in NRDC v. EPA, 

777 F .3d 456, 464–69 (D.C. Cir. 2014).4

The SIP Requirements Rule established 

a maximum deadline for marginal 

nonattainment areas to attain the 2008 

ozone NAAQS of three years from the 

effective date of designation, or July 20, 

2015. See 80 FR at 12268; 40 CFR 

51.1103.5


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
39022 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

D.C. Cir. Court also vacated other provisions 

relating to anti-backsliding in the SIP Requirements 

Rule as the Court found them unreasonable. Id. The 

D.C. Circuit found other parts of the 2008 Ozone 

SIP Requirements Rule unrelated to antibacksliding and this action reasonable and denied 

the petition for appeal on those. Id. 

6As noted previously, the 2017 design values are 

preliminary. 

7The 2014 and 2015 data at monitoring site 11– 

001–0041 (also referred to as ‘‘the River Terrace 

monitor’’) is incomplete. Therefore, the 2016 and 

2017 design values are invalid. The River Terrace 

monitor was temporarily shut down in March 2014 

due to renovations at the monitoring site. The River 

Terrace monitor was reinstated in 2016, and began 

operation in May 2016. The temporary shutdown of 

the River Terrace monitor is discussed in more 

detail in the TSD for this rulemaking action 

available online at https://www.regulations.gov, 

Docket ID: EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215. 

In a final rulemaking action published 

on May 4, 2016, EPA determined that 

the Washington Area did not attain the 

2008 ozone NAAQS by its July 20, 2015 

attainment date, based on ambient air 

quality monitoring data for the 2012– 

2014 monitoring period. In that same 

action, EPA determined that the 

Washington Area qualified for a 1-year 

extension of its attainment date, as 

provided in section 181(a)(5) of the CAA 

and interpreted by regulation at 40 CFR 

51.1107. With that final rulemaking 

action, the new attainment date for the 

Washington Area was July 20, 2016. See 

81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016). 

On November 14, 2017 (82 FR 52651), 

in accordance with section 181(b)(2)(A) 

of the CAA and Provisions for 

Implementation of the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS (40 CFR part 51, subpart AA), 

EPA made a determination that the 

Washington Area attained the 2008 

ozone NAAQS by the July 20, 2016 

attainment date. EPA’s determination 

was based upon three years of complete, 

certified, and quality-assured data for 

the 2013–2015 monitoring period. 

In addition, EPA has reviewed the 

most recent ambient air quality 

monitoring data for ozone in the Area, 

including preliminary 2017 design 

values, as submitted by the District, 

Maryland, and Virginia and recorded in 

EPA’s AQS. The quality-assured, 

quality-controlled, and state-certified 

2014 to 2016 ozone air quality data 

shows that the Washington Area 

continues to attain the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. This data, as well as the 

preliminary design values for 2017, are 

summarized in Table 1 and are also 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA– 

R03–OAR–2018–0215. 

TABLE 1—WASHINGTON AREA 2014–2016 AND PRELIMINARY 2015–2017 OZONE DESIGN VALUES

AQS Site ID Site description Jurisdiction 

Annual 4th highest reading 

(ppm) 

2014– 

2016 

design 

value 

(ppm) 

2015– 

2017 

design 

value 

(ppm) 2014 2015 2016 2017 6

11–001–0041 7 ..... 420 34th Street NE, Washington, DC 20019 ........... District of Columbia ......... ............ ............ 0.065 0.056 0.056 0.060 

11–001–0043 ....... 2500 1st Street NW, Washington, DC ..................... District of Columbia ......... 0.068 0.072 0.072 0.071 0.070 0.071 

11–001–0050 ....... 300 Van Buren Street NW, Washington, DC 20012 District of Columbia ......... 0.069 0.72 0.071 0.067 0.070 0.070

24–009–0011 ....... 350 Stafford Road .................................................... Maryland ......................... 0.070 0.067 0.070 0.066 0.069 0.067 

24–017–0010 ....... 14320 Oaks Road .................................................... Maryland ......................... 0.070 0.068 0.073 0.068 0.070 0.069 

24–021–0037 ....... Frederick County Airport .......................................... Maryland ......................... 0.063 0.070 0.070 0.067 0.067 0.069 

24–031–3001 ....... Lathrop E. Smith Environmental Education Center Maryland ......................... 0.064 0.072 0.068 0.065 0.068 0.068 

24–033–0030 ....... Howard University’s Beltsville Laboratory ................ Maryland ......................... 0.065 0.072 0.070 0.069 0.069 0.070 

24–033–8003 ....... PG County Equestrian Center .................................. Maryland ......................... 0.069 0.069 0.073 0.072 0.070 0.071 

24–033–9991 ....... Powder Mill Rd., Laurel, MD 20708 ......................... Maryland ......................... 0.069 0.067 0.070 0.070 0.068 0.069 

51–013–0020 ....... S 18th and Hayes St. ............................................... Virginia ............................ 0.071 0.073 0.072 0.070 0.072 0.071 

51–059–0030 ....... STA. 46–B9, Lee Park, Telegraph Road ................. Virginia ............................ 0.065 0.072 0.073 0.068 0.070 0.071 

51–107–1005 ....... 38–I, Broad Run High School, Ashburn ................... Virginia ............................ 0.063 0.071 0.068 0.066 0.067 0.068 

51–153–0009 ....... James S. Long Park ................................................. Virginia ............................ 0.062 0.067 0.067 0.065 0.065 0.066 

The Washington Area’s most recent 

monitoring data supports EPA’s 

previous determination that the Area 

has attained, and continues to attain, the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. In addition, as 

discussed subsequently with respect to 

the maintenance plan for the 

Washington Area, Maryland and 

Virginia have committed to continue 

monitoring ambient ozone 

concentrations in accordance with 40 

CFR part 58. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

Washington Area continues to attain the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which is 

required by CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) 

for redesignation of a nonattainment 

area to attainment. 

B. Have Maryland and Virginia met all 

applicable requirements of section 110 

and part D of the CAA for the 

Washington Area and does the 

Washington Area have a fully approved 

SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA? 

EPA has determined that Maryland 

and Virginia have met all SIP 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

this redesignation of the Maryland and 

Virginia portions of the Washington 

Area under section 110 of the CAA 

(General SIP Requirements) and that 

they have met all applicable SIP 

requirements under part D of Title I of 

the CAA, in accordance with section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA has 

determined that the Maryland and 

Virginia SIPs are fully approved with 

respect to all requirements applicable 

for purposes of redesignation in 

accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). 

In making these determinations, EPA 

ascertained what requirements are 

applicable to the Area and determined 

that the portions of the Maryland and 

Virginia SIPs meeting these 

requirements are fully approved under 

section 110(k) of the CAA. We note that 

SIPs must be fully approved only with 

respect to applicable requirements. 

The September 4, 1992 Calcagni 

memorandum (‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, 

September 4, 1992) describes EPA’s 

interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E) 

with respect to the timing of applicable 

requirements. Under this interpretation, 

to qualify for redesignation, states 

requesting redesignation to attainment 

must meet only the relevant CAA 

requirements that come due prior to the 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See also Shapiro memorandum, 

September 17, 1993, and 60 FR 12459, 

12465–12466, (March 7, 1995) 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39023 

8The Calcagni memorandum and Shapiro 

memorandum are included in the docket for this 

rulemaking available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA–R03–OAR– 

2018–0215. 

9On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA 

finalized the ‘‘Finding of Significant Contribution 

and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone 

Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of 

Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone’’— 

commonly called the NOX SIP Call. The NOX SIP 

call requires the District of Columbia and 22 states 

to reduce emissions of NOX in order to reduce the 

transport of ozone and ozone precursors. EPA 

developed the NOX Budget Trading Program, an 

allowance trading program that states could adopt 

to meet their obligations under the NOX SIP Call. 

The NOX Budget Trading Program allowed electric 

generating units (EGUs) greater than 25 megawatts 

and industrial non-electric generating units, such as 

boilers and turbines, with a rated heat input greater 

than 250 million British thermal units per hour 

(MMBtu/hr), referred to as ‘‘large non-EGUs’’, to 

participate in a regional NOX cap and trade 

program. The NOX SIP call also established 

reduction requirements for other non-EGUs, 

including cement kilns and stationary internal 

combustion (IC) engines. 

(redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor).8

Applicable requirements of the CAA 

that come due subsequent to the area’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request remain applicable until a 

redesignation is approved, but are not 

required as a prerequisite to 

redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the 

CAA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F .3d 537 

(7th Cir. 2004). See also 68 FR 25424, 

25427 (May 12, 2003) (redesignation of 

the St. Louis/East St. Louis area to 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS). 

1. Maryland and Virginia Have Met All 

Applicable Requirements of Section 110 

and Part D of the CAA Applicable to the 

Washington Area for Purposes of 

Redesignation 

a. Section 110 General Requirements 

for SIPs 

Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA 

contains the general requirements for a 

SIP, which include enforceable 

emissions limitations and other control 

measures, means, or techniques, 

provisions for the establishment and 

operation of appropriate devices 

necessary to collect data on ambient air 

quality, and programs to enforce the 

limitations. The general SIP elements 

and requirements set forth in section 

110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, 

the following: (1) Submit a SIP that has 

been adopted by the state after 

reasonable public notice and hearing; 

(2) include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, 

means, or techniques necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CAA; (3) 

provide for establishment and operation 

of appropriate devices, methods, 

systems and procedures necessary to 

monitor ambient air quality; (4) provide 

for implementation of a source permit 

program to regulate the modification 

and construction of stationary sources 

within the areas covered by the plan; (5) 

include provisions for the 

implementation of part C prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and part 

D new source review (NSR) permit 

programs; (6) include provisions for 

stationary source emission control 

measures, monitoring, and reporting; (7) 

include provisions for air quality 

modeling; and, (8) provide for public 

and local agency participation in 

planning and emission control rule 

development. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA 

requires SIPs to contain certain 

measures to prevent sources in a state 

from significantly contributing to air 

quality problems in another state. To 

implement this provision, EPA has 

required certain states to establish 

programs to address transport of air 

pollutants, in accordance with the NOX

SIP Call,9 amendments to the NOX SIP 

Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298), and 

March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

Update, October 26, 2016 (81 FR 74504). 

However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) SIP 

requirements are not linked with a 

particular area’s ozone designation and 

classification. EPA concludes that the 

SIP requirements linked with an area’s 

ozone designation and classification are 

the relevant measures to evaluate when 

reviewing a redesignation request for 

the area. The section 110(a)(2)(D) 

requirements, where applicable, 

continue to apply to a state regardless of 

the designation (or redesignation) of any 

one particular area within the state. 

Thus, these requirements are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. See 65 FR 37890 (June 

15, 2000), 66 FR 50399 (October 19, 

2001), and 68 FR 25418, 25426–25427 

(May 13, 2003). 

Similarly, other section 110 elements 

that are neither connected with 

attainment plan submissions nor linked 

with an area’s ozone attainment status 

are not applicable requirements for 

purposes of redesignation. An area that 

is redesignated from nonattainment to 

attainment will remain subject to these 

statewide requirements after the area is 

redesignated to attainment of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. The section 110(a)(2) 

requirements, which are linked with a 

particular area’s designation and 

classification, are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. The section 110(a)(2) elements 

not linked to the area’s nonattainment 

status are not applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. This approach is 

consistent with EPA’s existing policy on 

applicability (e.g., for redesignations) of 

conformity and oxygenated fuels 

requirements, as well as with section 

184 ozone transport region (OTR) 

requirements. See, e.g., Reading, 

Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings for redesignation, 61 FR 

53174–53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 

FR 24826 (May 7, 1997); ClevelandAkron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking 

for redesignation, 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida final 

rulemaking for redesignation, 60 FR 

62748 (December 7, 1995). For further 

information and analysis, see the 

discussion of this issue in the 

Cincinnati, Ohio ozone redesignation 

(65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and the 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ozone 

redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 

2001). 

EPA has reviewed Maryland’s and 

Virginia’s SIPs and concludes that they 

meet the general SIP requirements 

under section 110 of the CAA, to the 

extent those requirements are applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. On 

November 17, 2014 (79 FR 62010) and 

March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17043), EPA 

approved elements of the SIPs 

submitted by Maryland and Virginia, 

respectively, which, with the exception 

of interstate transport, meet the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As 

explained previously, the general 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) are 

statewide requirements that are not 

linked to the 2008 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment status of the Washington 

Area and are therefore not ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ for purpose of the review 

of Maryland’s and Virginia’s 2008 ozone 

NAAQS redesignation requests. Because 

Maryland’s and Virginia’s SIPs satisfy 

all of the general SIP elements and 

requirements set forth in CAA section 

110(a)(2) applicable to and necessary for 

redesignation, EPA concludes that 

Maryland and Virginia have satisfied 

the criterion of section 107(d)(3)(E) 

regarding section 110 of the CAA. 

b. Part D Requirements 

Areas designated nonattainment for 

the ozone NAAQS are subject to the 

applicable nonattainment area and 

ozone-specific planning requirements of 

part D of the CAA. Sections 172–176 of 

the CAA, found in subpart 1 of part D, 

set forth the basic nonattainment 

requirements for all nonattainment 

areas. Section 172(c), under part D of 

the CAA, sets forth the basic 

requirements of air quality plans for 

states with nonattainment areas for all 

pollutants that are required to submit 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
39024 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

10Ozone nonattainment areas are classified based 

on the severity of their ozone levels (as determined 

based on the area’s ‘‘design value,’’ which 

represents air quality in the area for the most recent 

3 years). The possible classifications for ozone 

nonattainment areas are Marginal, Moderate, 

Serious, Severe, and Extreme. See CAA section 

181(a)(1). 

11The OTR is comprised of the states of 

Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New 

York, Pennsylvania, and the Consolidated 

Metropolitan Statistical Area, which includes the 

District of Columbia and portions of Virginia. The 

areas designated as in the Virginia portion of the 

OTR are as follows: Arlington County, Fairfax 

County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, 

Stafford County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls 

Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park 

City. See, e.g. ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; NSR in the 

Ozone Transport Region’’, 71 FR 39570 (July 13, 

2006) and 71 FR 890 (January 6, 2006). 

12CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to 

submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain 

federal criteria and procedures for determining 

transportation conformity. Transportation 

conformity SIPs are different from SIPs requiring 

the development of Motor Vehicle Emission 

Budgets (MVEBs), such as control strategy SIPs and 

maintenance plans. 

plans pursuant to section 172(b). 

Section 182 of the CAA, found in 

subpart 2 of part D, establishes specific 

requirements for ozone nonattainment 

areas depending on the areas’ 

nonattainment classifications.10 The 

Washington Area was classified as 

marginal under subpart 2 of part D of 

the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As 

such, the Area is subject to the subpart 

1 requirements contained in CAA 

sections 172(c) and 176. The Area is 

also subject to the subpart 2 

requirements contained in CAA section 

182(a) (marginal nonattainment area 

requirements), which include, but are 

not limited to, submitting a baseline 

emissions inventory, adopting a SIP 

requiring emissions statements from 

stationary sources, and implementing a 

nonattainment NSR (NNSR) program for 

the relevant ozone standard. A thorough 

discussion of the requirements 

contained in CAA sections 172(c) and 

182 can be found in the General 

Preamble for Implementation of Title I 

(57 FR 13498). 

Additionally, states located in the 

OTR, which includes Maryland and 

portions of Virginia,11 are also subject to 

the requirements of CAA section 184. 

All areas located in the OTR, both 

attainment and nonattainment, are 

subject to additional control 

requirements under section 184 for the 

purpose of reducing interstate transport 

of emissions that may contribute to 

downwind ozone nonattainment. The 

section 184 requirements include 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT), NSR, enhanced vehicle 

inspection and maintenance (I/M), and 

Stage II vapor recovery or a comparable 

measure relating to gasoline dispensing 

facilities. 

EPA has interpreted the section 184 

OTR requirements, including the NSR 

program, as not being applicable for 

purposes of redesignation. The rationale 

for this is based on two considerations. 

First, the requirement to submit SIP 

revisions for the section 184 

requirements continues to apply to areas 

in the OTR even after redesignation to 

attainment. Therefore, states remain 

obligated to have NSR, as well as RACT, 

and I/M programs, even after 

redesignation. Second, the section 184 

control measures are region-wide 

requirements and do not apply to the 

area by virtue of the area’s designation 

and classification, and thus are properly 

considered not relevant to an action 

changing an area’s designation. See 61 

FR 53174, 53175–53176 (October 10, 

1996) and 62 FR 24826, 24830–24832 

(May 7, 1997). 

i. CAA Section 172 Requirements 

As provided in CAA part D, subpart 

2, for marginal ozone nonattainment 

areas such as the Washington Area, the 

ozone specific requirements of section 

182(a) supersede (where overlapping) 

the attainment planning requirements 

that would otherwise apply under 

section 172(c), including the attainment 

demonstration and reasonably available 

control measures (RACM) under section 

172(c)(1), reasonable further progress 

(RFP) under section 172(c)(2), and 

contingency measures under section 

172(c)(9). 42 U.S.C. 7511a(a). 

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission 

and approval of a comprehensive, 

accurate, and current inventory of actual 

emissions. This requirement is 

superseded by the inventory 

requirement in section 182(a)(1) 

discussed later in this notice. 

Section 172(c)(4) requires the 

identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified sources in an area, and section 

172(c)(5) requires source permits for the 

construction and operation of new and 

modified major stationary sources 

anywhere in the nonattainment area 

(NNSR). As explained previously, the 

Washington Area is included in the 

OTR established by Congress in section 

184 of the CAA. Therefore, sources 

located in Maryland and the portions of 

Virginia included in the OTR will 

remain subject to the part D NNSR 

requirements even after the Washington 

Area is redesignated to attainment. 

Since the part D NNSR requirements 

apply to the Washington Area regardless 

of its attainment status, they are not 

considered to be relevant for purposes 

of redesignation. Regardless, Maryland 

and Virginia both have an approved 

NNSR program. See 82 FR 45475 

(September 29, 2017) and 64 FR 51047 

(September 21, 1999). 

Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to 

contain control measures necessary to 

provide for attainment of the NAAQS. 

Because attainment has been reached in 

the Area, EPA finds no additional 

measures are needed in the SIPs to 

provide for attainment. 

Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to 

meet the applicable provisions of 

section 110(a)(2). As noted previously, 

Maryland’s and Virginia’s SIPs meet the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) for purposes of redesignation. 

ii. CAA Section 176 Conformity 

Requirements 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that federally 

supported or funded projects conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIP. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects that are developed, funded, or 

approved under title 23 of the United 

States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal 

Transit Act (transportation conformity) 

as well as to all other federally 

supported or funded projects (general 

conformity). State transportation 

conformity SIP revisions must be 

consistent with federal conformity 

regulations relating to consultation, 

enforcement, and enforceability that 

EPA promulgated pursuant to its 

authority under the CAA. 

EPA interprets the conformity SIP 

requirements 12 as not applicable for 

purposes of evaluating a redesignation 

request under section 107(d) because 

state conformity rules are still required 

after redesignation and federal 

conformity rules apply where state 

conformity rules have not been 

approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F .3d 

426 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding this 

interpretation); see also 60 FR 62748 

(December 7, 1995) (redesignation of 

Tampa, Florida). 

iii. Section 182 Requirements 

Section 182(a)(1) requires states to 

submit a comprehensive, accurate, and 

current inventory of actual emissions 

from sources of NOX and VOC emitted 

within the boundaries of the ozone 

nonattainment area. On July 17, 2014, 

the District and Virginia submitted a 

joint 2011 base year emissions inventory 

addressing NOX and VOC emissions, as 

well as carbon monoxide (CO) 

emissions, for the Washington Area. On 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39025 

13While not prejudging the outcome of EPA’s 

rulemaking on Virginia’s May 11, 2017 SIP revision, 

EPA expects to finalize rulemaking on that NNSR 

SIP revision before taking final action on this 

redesignation action. 

August 4, 2014, Maryland submitted its 

2011 base year emissions inventory for 

the Washington Area, which also 

addressed NOX, VOC, and CO. EPA 

approved the District’s, Maryland’s, and 

Virginia’s base year emissions 

inventories for NOX and VOC for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS on May 13, 2015 

(80 FR 27255). On July 23, 2015 (80 FR 

43625), EPA approved the District’s, 

Maryland’s, and Virginia’s base year 

emission inventories for CO. 

Under section 182(a)(2)(A), states 

with ozone nonattainment areas that 

were designated prior to the enactment 

of the 1990 CAA amendments were 

required to submit, within six months of 

classification, all rules and corrections 

to existing RACT rules that were 

required under section 172(b)(3) prior to 

the 1990 CAA amendments. EPA 

approved Maryland’s and Virginia’s SIP 

revisions satisfying the section 182(a)(2) 

RACT ‘‘fix-up’’ requirement on March 

31, 1994 (59 FR 15117) and November 

29, 1994 (59 FR 60908). 

Section 182(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

areas classified as serious and above to 

adopt and implement an enhanced I/M 

program. The Washington Area was 

classified as severe for the 1979 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS, and therefore enhanced 

I/M was required. In addition, section 

184(b)(1)(a) of the CAA requires areas 

located in the OTR that are a 

metropolitan statistical area, or part 

thereof, with a population of 100,000 or 

more to meet the enhanced I/M program 

requirements of CAA section 182(c)(3). 

EPA approved Maryland’s enhanced I/ 

M program into Maryland’s SIP on 

October 29, 1999 (64 FR 58340). EPA 

approved Virginia’s enhanced I/M 

program on September 1, 1999 (64 FR 

47670), as revised April 22, 2008 (73 FR 

21540). 

CAA section 182(a)(2)(C) and section 

182(a)(4) contain source permitting and 

offset requirements (known as NNSR). 

As discussed previously, part D NNSR 

will continue to apply to the 

Washington Area, regardless of 

attainment status, due to the 

Washington Area being part of the OTR. 

Therefore, EPA concludes that 

Maryland and Virginia need not have a 

fully approved part D NSR program 

prior to approval of the redesignation 

request. As stated previously, however, 

Maryland and Virginia both have an 

approved NNSR program. See 82 FR 

45475 (September 29, 2017) for 

Maryland and 64 FR 51047 (September 

21, 1999) for Virginia. On January 29, 

2018 (83 FR 3982), EPA approved 

Maryland’s May 8, 2017 SIP revision 

addressing the NNSR requirements for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS and certifying 

that Maryland’s existing NNSR program 

covering Maryland’s portion of the 

Washington Area is at least as stringent 

as the requirements at 40 CFR 51.165, as 

amended by the SIP Requirements Rule. 

On May 11, 2017, Virginia formally 

submitted a SIP revision to address the 

specific NNSR requirements for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS, located in 40 CFR 

51.160–165. In Virginia’s SIP revision, 

Virginia is certifying that its existing 

NNSR program covering Virginia’s 

portion of the Washington Area is at 

least as stringent as the requirements at 

40 CFR 51.165, as amended by the SIP 

Requirements Rule. EPA proposed 

approval of Virginia’s May 11, 2017 SIP 

revision addressing the NNSR 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS on April 4, 2018 (83 FR 

14386).13

Section 182(a)(3) requires states to 

submit periodic emission inventories 

and a revision to the SIP to require the 

owners or operators of stationary 

sources to annually submit emission 

statements documenting actual NOX and 

VOC emissions. Maryland and Virginia 

submit periodic emission inventories as 

required by CAA section 182(a)(3). As 

stated above, EPA approved the 

District’s, Maryland’s, and Virginia’s 

base year emissions inventories for NOX

and VOC for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on 

May 13, 2015 (80 FR 27255). With 

regard to stationary source emission 

statements, EPA approved Maryland’s 

and Virginia’s emission statement rules 

on October 12, 1994 (59 FR 51517) and 

May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21451), respectively, 

which satisfied the requirements of 

CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). Maryland’s 

and Virginia’s emission statement rules 

require certain sources in ozone 

nonattainment areas and the OTR to 

report annual NOX and VOC emissions. 

EPA approved Maryland’s and 

Virginia’s emission statement 

certification SIPs (finding Maryland and 

Virginia had an emission statement 

program meeting section 182(a)(3) 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS) on July 16, 2018 (83 FR 32796) 

and June 1, 2018 (83 FR 25378), 

respectively. 

Therefore, Maryland and Virginia 

have satisfied all applicable SIP 

requirements under section 110 and part 

D of title I of the CAA for purposes of 

redesignation of their respective 

portions of the Washington Area. As 

noted previously, EPA will act on the 

District’s redesignation request for its 

portion of the Washington Area in a 

separate rulemaking. 

2. Maryland and Virginia Have Fully 

Approved SIPs for Purposes of 

Redesignation Under Section 110(k) of 

the CAA 

At various times, Maryland and 

Virginia have adopted and submitted, 

and EPA has approved, provisions 

addressing the various SIP elements 

applicable for the ozone NAAQS. As 

discussed previously, EPA has fully 

approved Maryland’s and Virginia’s 

SIPs for the Washington Area under 

section 110(k) for all requirements 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA 

may rely on prior SIP approvals in 

approving a redesignation request (see 

the Calcagni memorandum at page 3; 

Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth 

Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989– 

990 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 

F.3d 426), plus any additional measures 

it may approve in conjunction with a 

redesignation action (see 68 FR 25426 

(May 12, 2003) and citations therein). 

C. Are the air quality improvements in 

the Washington area due to permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions? 

To redesignate an area from 

nonattainment to attainment, section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA requires 

EPA to determine that the air quality 

improvement in the area is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from the 

implementation of the SIP and 

applicable federal air pollution control 

regulations and other permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions. 

Maryland and Virginia have 

demonstrated that the observed ozone 

air quality improvement in the 

Washington Area is due to permanent 

and enforceable reductions in NOX and 

VOC emissions resulting from Maryland 

and Virginia measures approved as part 

of the SIP as well as federal measures. 

In making this demonstration, 

Maryland and Virginia have calculated 

the change in emissions between 2011 

and 2014. The change in emissions is 

shown in Table 2. Maryland and 

Virginia attribute the decrease in 

emissions and corresponding 

improvement in air quality during this 

time period to a number of regulatory 

control measures that have been 

implemented in the Washington Area 

and upwind areas in recent years. Based 

on the information summarized in the 

following sections, Maryland and 

Virginia have adequately demonstrated 

that the improvement in air quality is 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emissions reductions. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
39026 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

14See https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/ 

reformulated-gasoline for more information on the 

RFG program. 

1. Permanent and Enforceable Emission 

Controls Implemented 

a. Federal Emission Control Measures 

A variety of federal and state control 

programs have contributed to reduced 

on-road, point source, and nonroad 

emissions of NOX and VOC in the 

Washington Area, with additional 

emission reductions expected to occur 

in the future as older equipment and 

vehicles are replaced with newer, 

compliant models. Federal emission 

control measures include the following: 

Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control 

Requirements 

On February 10, 2000 (65 FR 6698), 

EPA promulgated Tier 2 motor vehicle 

emission standards and gasoline sulfur 

control requirements. These emission 

control requirements result in lower 

NOX and VOC emissions from new cars 

and light duty trucks, including sport 

utility vehicles. With respect to fuels, 

this rule required refiners and importers 

of gasoline to meet lower standards for 

sulfur in gasoline, which were phased 

in between 2004 and 2006. By 2006, 

refiners were required to meet a 30 ppm 

average sulfur level, with a maximum 

cap of 80 ppm. This reduction in fuel 

sulfur content ensures the effectiveness 

of low emission-control technologies. 

The Tier 2 tailpipe standards 

established in this rule were phased in 

for new vehicles between 2004 and 

2009. EPA estimated in the final rule 

that this program will reduce annual 

NOX emissions by about 2.2 million 

tons per year in 2020 and 2.8 million 

tons per year in 2030 after the program 

is fully implemented and non-compliant 

vehicles have all been retired. 

Control of Emissions From Nonroad 

Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment 

On October 8, 2008 (73 FR 59034), 

EPA finalized emission standards for 

new nonroad spark-ignition engines. 

The exhaust emission standards applied 

beginning in 2010 for new marine sparkignition engines and in 2011 and 2012 

for different sizes of new land-based, 

spark-ignition engines at or below 19 

kW (i.e. small engines used primarily in 

lawn and garden applications). In the 

October 8, 2008 final rule, EPA 

estimated that by 2030 the rule will 

result in annual nationwide reductions 

of 604,000 tons of volatile organic 

hydrocarbon emissions, 132,200 tons of 

NOX emissions, and 5,500 tons of 

directly-emitted PM2.5 emissions. These 

reductions correspond to significant 

reductions in the formation of groundlevel ozone. 

Nonroad Diesel Engines Tier 1 and Tier 

2 

On June 17, 1994 (59 FR 31306), EPA 

made an affirmative determination 

under section 213(a)(2) of the CAA that 

nonroad engines are significant 

contributors to ambient ozone or CO 

levels in more than one nonattainment 

area. In the same notice, EPA also made 

a determination under CAA section 

213(a)(4) that other emissions from 

compression-ignition (CI) nonroad 

engines rated at or above 37 kilowatts 

(kW) cause or contribute to air pollution 

that may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare. In 

the June 17, 1994 final rule, EPA set a 

first phase of emission standards (Tier 1 

standards) for nonroad diesel engines 

rated 37 kW and above. These standards 

apply to nonroad, compression-ignition 

(i.e. diesel-powered) utility engines 

including, but not limited to, farm, 

construction, and industrial equipment, 

rated at or above 37 kW. On October 23, 

1998 (63 FR 56968), EPA finalized a 

second phase of emission standards 

(Tier 2 standards) for nonroad diesel 

engines rated under 37 kW. These 

emission standards have resulted in a 

decrease in NOX emissions from the 

combustion of diesel fuel used to power 

this equipment. The Tier 1 and Tier 2 

standards for nonroad diesel engines 

will continue to result in emission 

reductions as older equipment is 

replaced with newer, compliant models. 

Emissions Standards for Large Spark 

Ignition Engines 

On November 8, 2002 (67 FR 68242), 

EPA established emission standards for 

large spark-ignition engines such as 

those used in forklifts and airport 

ground-service equipment; recreational 

vehicles using spark-ignition engines 

such as off-highway motorcycles, allterrain vehicles, and snow mobiles; and 

recreational marine diesel engines. 

These emission standards were phased 

in from model year 2004 through 2012. 

When the emission standards are fully 

implemented in 2030, EPA expects a 

national 75 percent reduction in 

hydrocarbon (HC) emissions, 82 percent 

reduction in NOX emissions, 61 percent 

reduction in CO emissions, and a 60 

percent reduction in direct particulate 

matter (PM) emissions from these 

engines, equipment, and vehicles 

compared to projected emissions if the 

standards were not implemented. 

Standards for Reformulated and 

Conventional Gasoline 

On February 16, 1994 (59 FR 7716), 

EPA finalized regulations requiring that 

gasoline in certain areas be reformulated 

to reduce vehicle emissions of toxic and 

ozone-forming compounds, including 

NOX and VOC. Reformulated gasoline 

(RFG) is required in the Washington 

Area. The first phase of the RFG 

program (Phase I) began in 1995 and the 

second phase (Phase II) began in 2000. 

These standards affect various gasolinepowered non-road mobile sources, such 

as lawn equipment, generators, and 

compressors. EPA estimates that Phase 

I of the RFG program resulted in a 2 

percent and 17 percent annual 

reduction in NOX, and VOCs, 

respectively, from 1995 emission levels 

and prevented 64,000 tons of smogforming pollutants, including NOX and 

VOC, from being emitted into the air 

from 1995 to 2000. Phase II of the RFG 

program, which began in 2000, was 

expected to reduce emissions of NOX

and VOC by 7 percent and 27 percent, 

respectively, from 1995 emission levels 

and reduce emissions of smog-forming 

pollutants by an additional 41,000 

tons.14 The RFG program continues to 

provide emission reductions in the 

Washington Area as the use of RFG 

results in less vehicle emissions of NOX

and VOC compared to the use of 

conventional gasoline. 

Emission Standards for Locomotives 

and Locomotive Engines 

On April 16, 1998 (63 FR 18978), EPA 

established emission standards for NOX, 

HC, CO, PM, and smoke from newly 

manufactured and remanufactured 

diesel-powered locomotives and 

locomotive engines. These emission 

standards were effective in 2000 and are 

expected to result in a more than 60 

percent reduction in NOX emissions 

from locomotives by 2040 compared to 

1995 baseline levels. 

b. Control Measures Specific to the 

Washington Area 

Maryland Healthy Air Act 

In addition to the measures referenced 

previously, a reduction of emission of 

ozone precursors can also be attributed 

to the Maryland Healthy Air Act 

(Annotated Code of Maryland 

Environment Title 2 Ambient Air 

Quality Control Subtitle 10 Healthy Air 

Act Sections 2–1001 to 2–1005, with 

implementing regulations at COMAR 

26.11.27 Emission Limitations for Power 

Plants). The Maryland Health Air Act 

(HAA) was effective on July 16, 2007 

and approved by EPA on September 4, 

2008 (73 FR 51599). The HAA 

established limits on the amount of NOX

and SO2 emissions affected facilities in 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39027 

15See Mutual Determination Letter from Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality to Mr. 

William Lee Davis, President, GenOn Potomac 

River, LLC, Subject: Mutual Determination of 

Permanent Shutdown of the Potomac River 

Generating Station, December 20, 2012 included in 

the docket for this rulemaking available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA–R03– 

OAR–2018–0215. 

Maryland could emit and required the 

installation of on-site pollution controls 

at 15 power plants in Maryland. The 

first phase of the HAA occurred 

between 2009 and 2010 and reduced 

NOX emissions from affected sources by 

almost 70% compared to 2002 levels. 

The second phase of the HAA occurred 

between 2012 and 2013. Maryland 

estimates that the HAA will reduce NOX

emissions by approximately 75% from 

2002 levels. 

Closure of GenOn Potomac River LLC 

Facility 

The decrease in emissions of ozone 

precursors is also attributable to the 

closure of the GenOn Potomac River 

plant located in Alexandria, Virginia. 

This 482-megawatt electrical generating 

facility consisted of five coal-fired 

boilers and emitted 557.7 tons of NOX

annually and 2.7 tons of NOX per ozone 

season day (tpd) in 2011. The plant 

ceased operations and signed a mutual 

determination letter on December 21, 

2012, agreeing to the permanent 

shutdown of the source and revoking all 

permits for the facility.15 Therefore, this 

closure is permanent and federally 

enforceable. 

2. Emission Reductions 

Maryland and Virginia calculated the 

change in emissions between 2011 and 

2014 throughout the entire Washington 

Area to demonstrate that air quality has 

improved. The change in emissions is 

shown in Table 2. Maryland and 

Virginia used the 2011 base year 

emissions inventory for the Washington 

Area as the nonattainment year 

inventory because 2011 was one of the 

three years used to designate the area 

nonattainment for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. EPA approved the Washington 

Area 2011 base year inventory as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 182(a)(1) on May 13, 2015 (80 

FR 27276) for NOX and VOC emissions 

and July 23, 2015 (80 FR 43625) for CO 

emissions. As explained later in this 

notice, 2014 was used as the attainment 

year inventory. 

TABLE 2—2011–2014 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR THE WASHINGTON, DC-MD-VA AREA

2011 2014 D 2011—2014 % Reduction 

from 2011 

VOC Emissions (tpd) 

295.0 ............................................................................................................................................ 259.4 35.6 12.1 

NOX Emissions (tpd) 

436.5 ............................................................................................................................................ 296.9 139.6 32.0 

CO Emissions (tpd) 

1,800.8 ......................................................................................................................................... 1,617.9 182.9 10.2 

Note: 2011 emissions data is from the 2011 base year emissions inventory for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area that was approved by EPA on May 13, 2015 (80 FR 27276) for NOX and VOC emissions and July 23, 2015 (80 FR 43625) for CO 

emissions. 

Table 2 shows that emissions of NOX

and VOC in the Washington area were 

reduced by 139.6 tpd and 35.6 tpd, 

respectively, between 2011 and 2014. 

As discussed previously, Maryland and 

Virginia identified several federal and 

state rules approved into Maryland’s 

and Virginia’s SIPs that resulted in the 

reduction of NOX and VOC emissions 

from 2011 to 2014. Therefore, Maryland 

and Virginia have shown that the air 

quality improvements in the 

Washington Area are due to permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions. 

D. Do the District, Maryland, and 

Virginia have fully approvable ozone 

maintenance plans for the Washington 

Area? 

As one of the criteria for redesignation 

to attainment, section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of 

the CAA requires EPA to determine that 

the area has a fully approved 

maintenance plan pursuant to section 

175A of the CAA. Section 175A of the 

CAA sets forth the elements of a 

maintenance plan for areas seeking 

redesignation from nonattainment to 

attainment. Under CAA section 175A, 

the maintenance plan must demonstrate 

continued attainment of the NAAQS for 

at least 10 years after the Administrator 

approves a redesignation to attainment. 

Eight years after the redesignation, the 

state must submit a revised maintenance 

plan which demonstrates that 

attainment of the NAAQS will continue 

for an additional 10 years beyond the 

initial 10-year maintenance period. To 

address the possibility of future NAAQS 

violations, the maintenance plan must 

contain contingency measures, as EPA 

deems necessary, to assure prompt 

correction of the future NAAQS 

violation. 

The Calcagni memorandum provides 

further guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan, explaining that a 

maintenance plan should address five 

elements: (1) An attainment emission 

inventory; (2) a maintenance 

demonstration; (3) a commitment for 

continued air quality monitoring; (4) a 

process for verification of continued 

attainment; and (5) a contingency plan. 

In conjunction with their requests to 

redesignate their respective portions of 

the Washington Area to attainment for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the District, 

Maryland, and Virginia submitted, as a 

revision to their SIPs, a plan to provide 

for maintenance of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS through 2030, which is more 

than 10 years after the expected 

effective date of the redesignation to 

attainment. EPA anticipates 

redesignating the entire Washington 

Area, including the District’s portion, by 

2019. As discussed in this notice, EPA 

is proposing to find that the District’s, 

Maryland’s, and Virginia’s maintenance 

plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

includes the necessary components per 

the CAA, including CAA section 175A 

and EPA guidance, and is proposing to 

approve the maintenance plan as 

revisions to the District’s, Maryland’s, 

and Virginia’s SIPs. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
39028 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1. Attainment Inventory 

The Calcagni memorandum indicates 

that states requesting redesignation to 

attainment should develop an 

attainment emissions inventory in order 

to identify the level of emissions in the 

area which is sufficient to attain the 

NAAQS. The attainment inventory 

should be consistent with EPA’s most 

recent guidance on emission inventories 

for nonattainment areas available at the 

time and should include the emissions 

during the time period associated with 

monitoring data showing attainment. 

For the attainment inventory, the 

District, Maryland, and Virginia used 

the year 2014, which is one of the years 

during the three-year period associated 

with the monitoring data first showing 

attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

(i.e., 2013 to 2015). As previously 

mentioned, on November 14, 2017, EPA 

determined that the Washington Area 

attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the 

attainment date, based on 2013 to 2015 

data. See 82 FR 52651. The attainment 

year inventory is summarized in Table 

3. A detailed evaluation of the 

methodology used to develop the 

attainment year inventory (and EPA’s 

rationale to approve the attainment 

inventory) is provided in the Emission 

Inventory Technical Support Document 

(EI TSD), which is included in the 

docket for this rulemaking available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

Docket ID: EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215. 

TABLE 3—2014 ATTAINMENT INVENTORY FOR THE WASHINGTON AREA

Source category NOX (tpd) VOC 

(tpd) 

CO 

(tpd) 

Point ............................................................................................................................................. 64.9 7.7 23.7 

Non-Point (Area) .......................................................................................................................... 9.6 139.3 63.5 

Marine, Air, Rail (MAR) ............................................................................................................... 19.2 2.4 19.6 

Nonroad Model ............................................................................................................................ 52 47.5 762.8 

On-Road Mobile ........................................................................................................................... 136.8 61.3 744.1 

Quasi-Point .................................................................................................................................. 14.4 1.2 4.2 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 296.9 259.4 1617.9 

2. Have the District, Maryland, and 

Virginia documented maintenance of 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the 

Washington Area? 

a. Maintenance Emission Inventory for 

the Washington Area 

The District, Maryland, and Virginia 

have demonstrated maintenance of the 

2008 ozone standard through 2030 by 

the use of emission inventories showing 

that future emissions of NOX and VOC 

for the Washington Area will remain at 

or below attainment year emission 

levels. A maintenance demonstration 

need not be based on modeling. See 

Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 

2001), Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 

(7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 

53099–53100 (October 19, 2001) and 68 

FR 25413, 25430–25432 (May 12, 2003). 

The District, Maryland, and Virginia 

are using emissions inventories for the 

years 2025 and 2030 to demonstrate 

maintenance in the Washington Area. 

EPA anticipates redesignating the entire 

Washington Area, including the 

District’s portion, in 2019. 2030 is more 

than 10 years after the expected 

effective date of the redesignation to 

attainment, and 2025 was selected to 

demonstrate that emissions are not 

expected to increase in the interim 

between the attainment year and the 

final maintenance year. 

In order to develop the 2025 and 2030 

inventories, the District, Maryland, and 

Virginia applied growth factors to the 

2014 attainment year emissions 

inventory (shown in Table 3). A detailed 

evaluation of the methodology used to 

develop the maintenance inventory (and 

EPA’s rational for approving the 

maintenance inventory as well as the 

growth factors used) is provided in 

EPA’s EI TSD, which is included in the 

docket for this rulemaking available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

Docket ID: EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215. 

The maintenance inventory, provided 

in Table 4, shows the projected 

emissions of NOX, VOC, and CO in the 

Washington Area for 2014 (the 

attainment year), 2025, and 2030 and 

demonstrates that future emissions of 

NOX, VOC, and CO will not exceed the 

levels of the 2014 attainment year 

inventory for the Washington area for a 

minimum of 10 years following 

redesignation. 

TABLE 4—2014 TO 2030 NOX, VOC, AND CO MAINTENANCE EMISSIONS INVENTORIES FOR THE WASHINGTON AREA

Source category 

NOX

(tpd) 

VOC 

(tpd) 

CO 

(tpd) 

2014 2025 2030 2014 2025 2030 2014 2025 2030 

Point ................................................................................. 64.9 66.0 68.5 7.7 8.8 9.4 23.7 25.1 26.2

Non-Point (Area) .............................................................. 9.6 9.9 10.0 139.3 153.7 160.3 63.6 64.9 65.5 

Marine-Air-Rail (M–A–R) .................................................. 19.2 21.4 22.4 2.4 2.6 2.6 19.6 19.9 20.7 

Nonroad Mobile ................................................................ 52.0 29.6 27.8 47.5 44.9 47.2 762.8 845.8 898.8 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................... 136.8 40.7 27.4 61.3 33.2 24.1 744.1 457.1 323.7 

Quasi-Point ....................................................................... 14.4 14.4 14.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 

Total .......................................................................... 296.9 182.0 170.5 259.4 244.4 244.8 1618.0 1417.0 1339.1 

D 2014–2025 .................................................................... 114.9 15.0 201.0 

D 2014–2030 .................................................................... 126.4 14.6 278.9 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39029 

16The National Capital Region Transportation 

Planning Board (TPB) is the federally designated 

metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for 

metropolitan Washington. 

In summary, EPA finds the 

maintenance inventory for the 

Washington Area provided in Table 4 

shows maintenance of the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS by providing emissions 

information and reasonable growth 

factors to support the demonstration 

that future emissions of NOX and VOC 

will remain at or below 2014 emission 

levels (an inventory year showing 

attainment of NAAQS) when taking into 

account both future source growth and 

implementation of future controls. Table 

4 shows that NOX and VOC emissions 

are projected to decrease by 126.4 tpd 

and 14.6 tpd, respectively, between 

2014 and 2030. EPA finds that the 

District, Maryland, and Virginia have 

demonstrated maintenance of the 2008 

ozone standard in the Washington Area 

through 2030. 

b. Control Measures for Maintenance of 

Air Quality in the Washington Area 

The point, nonroad, and on-road 

emission projections for 2025 and 2030 

include a variety of control strategies 

that will reduce emissions of NOX and 

VOC in future years. 

i. Point Sector Controls 

COMAR 26.11.38 Control of NOX

Emissions From Coal-Fired Electric 

Generating Units 

COMAR 26.11.38 (also referred to as 

the Maryland NOX Rule) established 

new NOX emission standards and 

additional monitoring and reporting 

requirements for coal-fired EGUs in 

Maryland. COMAR 26.11.38 was 

approved by EPA into the SIP on May 

30, 2017 (82 FR 24546). The coal-fired 

EGUs included in this rule account for 

more than 80 percent of the State of 

Maryland’s NOX emissions from power 

plants. These new NOX emission 

standards have resulted in reductions in 

NOX emissions. 

ii. Nonroad Emission Controls 

As discussed previously, a variety of 

federal and state control programs have 

contributed to reduced on-road, point 

source, and nonroad emissions of NOX

and VOC in the Washington Area, with 

additional emission reductions expected 

to occur in the future. These Federal 

measures include the following and are 

discussed in more detail in section 

IV.C.1.b. of this rulemaking: (1) Control 

of Emissions from Nonroad SparkIgnition Engines and Equipment; (2) 

Nonroad Diesel Engines Tier 1 and Tier 

2; (3) Emissions Standards for Large 

Spark Ignition Engines; (4) Standards for 

Reformulated and Conventional 

Gasoline; and, (5) Emission Standards 

for Locomotives and Locomotive 

Engines. 

iii. On-Road Emission Controls 

Tier 3 Vehicle Emissions and Fuel 

Standards Program 

On April 28, 2014 (79 FR 23414), EPA 

established more stringent vehicle 

emissions standards. The vehicle 

emissions standards will reduce both 

tailpipe and evaporative emissions of 

the ozone precursors NOX and VOC 

from passenger cars, light-duty trucks, 

medium-duty passenger vehicles, and 

some heavy-duty vehicles. These 

standards will result in significant 

reductions in ozone concentrations due 

to the decrease in NOX and VOC 

emissions. The Tier 3 standards include 

new light- and heavy-duty vehicle 

emission standards for exhaust 

emissions of VOC, NOX, and PM, as 

well as new evaporative emissions 

standards. In the final rule, EPA 

estimates that in 2030, when Tier 3 

vehicles will make up the majority of 

the fleet as well as vehicle miles 

traveled, NOX and VOC emissions from 

on-highway vehicles will be reduced by 

about 21 percent compared to projected 

emission levels if the Tier 3 standards 

were not implemented. 

Transportation Emission Reduction 

Measures 

The National Capital Region 

Transportation Planning Board (TPB) 16

utilizes many strategies to reduce 

emissions from mobile sources by 

reducing the number of vehicle trips 

and/or vehicle miles traveled. Such 

strategies include, but are not limited to, 

ridesharing programs, telecommuting 

programs, improved transit and 

bicycling facilities, and clean fuel 

vehicle programs. A summary of these 

measures is provided by TPB in their 

transportation conformity analyses. The 

emission reductions from these 

strategies were not included in the 2025 

and 2030 maintenance emissions 

inventories. 

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 

Programs 

The District, Maryland, and Virginia 

operate enhanced I/M programs to 

ensure that motorists are driving 

vehicles that meet federal emission 

requirements. Owners of vehicles that 

do not meet requirements, based on tail 

pipe or On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) 

testing, must repair the vehicles or show 

that the total costs of repair are more 

than waiver limitations. As noted 

previously, EPA approved Maryland’s 

and Virginia’s enhanced I/M program 

into Maryland’s and Virginia’s SIPs on 

October 29, 1999 (64 FR 58340) and 

September 1, 1999 (64 FR 47670), as 

revised April 22, 2008 (73 FR 21540), 

respectively. EPA approved the 

District’s enhanced I/M program into 

the District’s SIP on June 11, 1999 (64 

FR 31498). 

3. Continued Air Quality Monitoring 

The District, Maryland, and Virginia 

have committed, in their joint 

maintenance plan for the Washington 

Area, to continue to operate an 

appropriate air quality monitoring 

network in accordance with 40 CFR part 

58. The District, Maryland, and Virginia 

also committed, in their redesignation 

requests, to continue to monitor ozone 

concentrations in the Washington Area 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and 

EPA-approved annual monitoring plans, 

to quality-assure the monitoring data in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and to 

enter all data into AQS in a timely 

fashion. 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

The District, Maryland, and Virginia 

state in their maintenance plan 

submittal that they have the legal 

authority to develop, implement, and 

enforce regulations regarding air 

pollution, including the requirements of 

the maintenance plan for the 

Washington Area. The District, 

Maryland, and Virginia cite the 

regulations and statutory provisions 

included in Table 5 below as providing 

them with the authority to develop, 

implement, and enforce the 

requirements of the maintenance plan 

for the Washington Area. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
39030 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

17 In the District’s May 25, 2018 emission 

statement certification SIP submittal for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, the District cites to section 20–500.9 

of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations 

(DCMR) (20 DCMR 500.9) as containing the 

District’s emission statement rules. However, the 

District’s emission statement rules were SIPapproved as 20 DCMR 500.7 (60 FR 27889, May 26, 

1995). A recodification of 20 DCMR 500 caused the 

TABLE 5—MEASURES CITED AS PROVIDING THE DISTRICT, MARYLAND, AND VIRGINIA WITH THE AUTHORITY TO DEVELOP, 

IMPLEMENT, AND ENFORCE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR THE WASHINGTON AREA

State Citation Description 

Virginia ................................ Section 10.1–1308 of the Virginia Air Pollution Control 

Law (Title 10.1, Chapter 13 of the Code of Virginia).

Authorizes the State Air Pollution Control Board to promulgate regulations abating, controlling, and prohibiting air pollution in order to protect public health and 

welfare. 

Maryland ............................. Annotated Code of Maryland, Section 2–103 ................. Legal authority to implement and enforce. 

Maryland ............................. Annotated Code of Maryland, Environment Article, Section 2–302(a)–(d).Authority for MDE to set emission standards and ambient air quality standards for each air quality control 

area in the state. 

Maryland ............................. Annotated Code of Maryland, Environment Article, Section 2–601–614.Authority for MDE to enforce the standards and impose 

penalties. 

District of Columbia ............. Air Pollution Control Act of 1984, as amended (D.C. Official Code Section 8–101.05–101.06).Provides authority to ‘‘develop a comprehensive program for the control and prevention of air pollution in 

the District that provides for the administration and 

enforcement of the requirements of [the Act] and the 

regulations promulgated pursuant to [the Act].’’ 

District of Columbia ............. 20 DCMR Sections 101, 102, and 105 ........................... Authority for inspection, order for compliance, and penalty, respectively. 

In their joint maintenance plan 

submittal, the District, Maryland, and 

Virginia also referenced several 

regulatory elements that each state will 

retain in order to maintain attainment of 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. These 

regulatory elements are summarized in 

Table 6. 

TABLE 6—REGULATORY MEASURES CITED FOR CONTINUED ATTAINMENT

State Citation Description 

District of Columbia ............. 20 DCMR 202 and 20 DCMR 303.8 ............................... Shutdown requirements. 

District of Columbia ............. 20 DCMR Chapter 2 (General and Non-Attainment Area 

Permits) and 20 DCMR Chapter 3 (Operating Permits 

and Acid Rain Programs).

Permitting requirements. 

District of Columbia ............. 20 DCMR 804, 805, 899 (NOX), 20 DCMR Chapter 10 

(NOX Emissions Budget), and 20 DCMR Chapter 7 

(Volatile Organic Compounds).

Regulatory requirements. 

District of Columbia ............. 18 DCMR Chapters 4, 6, 7, 11, 26, and 99 .................... I/M program requirements. 

District of Columbia ............. 20 DCMR Chapter 5 ........................................................ Emission statement requirements. 

Maryland ............................. COMAR 26.11.01.05–1 ................................................... Emission statement requirements. 

Maryland ............................. COMAR 11.14.08 ............................................................ I/M program requirements. 

Maryland ............................. COMAR 26.11.02 and COMAR 26.11.03 ....................... Permitting requirements. 

Virginia ................................ 9VAC5–20–220 ............................................................... Shutdown requirements. 

Virginia ................................ 9VAC5–80 ....................................................................... Permits for stationary sources. 

Virginia ................................ 9VAC5–91 ....................................................................... I/M program requirements for Northern Virginia. 

Virginia ................................ 9VAC5–20–160.B ............................................................ Emission statement requirements. 

Verification of continued attainment 

is accomplished through operation of 

the ambient ozone monitoring network 

and the periodic update of the area’s 

emissions inventory. As stated above, 

the District, Maryland, and Virginia 

have committed, in their joint 

maintenance plan for the Washington 

Area, to continue to operate an 

appropriate air quality monitoring 

network in accordance with 40 CFR part 

58. The District, Maryland, and Virginia 

also committed, in their redesignation 

requests, to continue to monitor ozone 

concentrations in the Washington Area 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and 

EPA-approved annual monitoring plans, 

to quality-assure the monitoring data in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and to 

enter all data into AQS in a timely 

fashion. The District, Maryland, and 

Virginia state in their joint maintenance 

plan that they will track attainment and 

maintenance using ambient and source 

emission data. 

In addition, to track the progress of 

the maintenance demonstration, the 

District, Maryland, and Virginia state in 

their joint maintenance plan submittal 

that they will periodically update the 

emissions inventory. The District, 

Maryland, and Virginia also commit to 

an annual evaluation consisting of a 

comparison of key emissions trend 

indicators, such as the annual emissions 

update of stationary sources and the 

Highway Performance Monitoring 

System (HPMS) vehicle miles traveled 

data reported to the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), to the growth 

assumptions used in the plan. The 

District, Maryland, and Virginia also 

commit in their maintenance plan 

submittal to developing and submitting 

to EPA ‘‘comprehensive tracking 

inventories every three years or as 

required by federal regulation during 

the maintenance plan period.’’ EPA 

notes that point source facilities covered 

by the District’s, Maryland’s, and 

Virginia’s emission statement rules are 

required to submit NOX and VOC 

emissions on an annual basis to address 

CAA requirements in CAA section 

182.17


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39031 

emission statement rules under 20 DCMR 500.7 to 

move to 20 DCMR 500.9. Despite the recodification, 

the District’s emission statement rules continue to 

require applicable point sources in the District to 

submit information on NOX and VOC emissions on 

an annual basis. EPA intends to propose 

conditional approval of the District’s emission 

statement certification SIP for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, contingent on the District’s submittal of a 

SIP revision updating the District’s SIP to reflect the 

recodification of 20 DCMR 500. 

18The Model Rule for Consumer Products was 

developed by the OTC and establishes limits on 

VOC emissions from consumer products including, 

but not limited to, adhesives, air fresheners, general 

purpose cleaners, and hairsprays. See ‘‘2013 

Consumer Product Update’’, May 21, 3013, 

available at https://otcair.org/ 

document.asp?Fview=modelrules. 

19The Model Rule for Architectural and 

Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings was 

developed by the OTC and establishes limits on 

VOC emissions from AIM coatings, including, but 

not limited to concrete/masonry sealer, driveway 

sealers, and wood coatings. See ‘‘Model Rule 2009– 

2014—Architectural & Industrial Maintenance 

(AIM) Coatings’’, Updated October 13, 2014, 

available at https://otcair.org/ 

document.asp?Fview=modelrules. 

5. What is the contingency plan for the 

Washington Area? 

Section 175A of the CAA requires that 

the state must adopt a maintenance 

plan, as a SIP revision, that includes 

such contingency measures as EPA 

deems necessary to assure that the state 

will promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after a redesignation 

of the area to attainment of the NAAQS. 

The maintenance plan must identify the 

contingency measures to be considered 

and, if needed for maintenance, adopted 

and implemented; a schedule and 

procedure for adoption and 

implementation; and, a time limit for 

action by the state. The state should also 

identify specific indicators to be used to 

determine when the contingency 

measures need to be considered, 

adopted, and implemented. 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, the District, Maryland, and 

Virginia have adopted a contingency 

plan for the Washington Area to address 

possible future ozone air quality 

problems as described herein and in the 

TSD for this rulemaking available online 

at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket 

ID: EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215. EPA’s 

analysis of the contingency plan as 

addressing requirements in CAA section 

175A is also in the TSD. 

a. Contingency Measures 

The District, Maryland, and Virginia 

included several measures as 

contingency measures in their joint 

maintenance plan submittal that EPA 

found to not be appropriate for use as 

contingency measures as discussed in 

detail in the TSD for this rulemaking. 

However, since emission reductions 

from these measures were not accounted 

for in the maintenance inventory or the 

MVEBs, it is expected that these 

measures will provide more emission 

reductions than what was projected in 

the maintenance inventory or the 

MVEBs. Thus, these measures will 

provide additional assurance that the 

2008 ozone standard will be maintained 

in the Washington Area. A description 

of the District’s, Maryland’s, and 

Virginia’s submitted contingency 

measures as well as EPA’s evaluation of 

these measures and the contingency 

plan as a whole can be found in the TSD 

for this rulemaking available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: 

EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215. Table 7 

lists the measures that EPA finds 

appropriate to use as contingency 

measures for the Washington Area. 

TABLE 7—MEASURES FOUND TO BE APPROPRIATE TO USE AS CONTINGENCY MEASURES FOR THE WASHINGTON AREA

Measure State 

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) 2009–2014 model rule for VOC 

for consumer products 18.

Virginia. 

OTC 2009–2014 model rule for VOC for architectural and industrial 

maintenance coatings 19.

Virginia. 

Additional contingency measures as needed .......................................... District of Columbia, Maryland, and/or Virginia. 

b. Indicators 

The District, Maryland, and Virginia 

include specific indicators, or 

‘‘triggers’’, to be used to determine when 

the contingency measures need to be 

considered, adopted, and implemented. 

In the contingency measure 

implementation schedule included in 

the maintenance plan and discussed 

later in this notice, the District, 

Maryland, and Virginia state that the 

‘‘schedule onset’’ for the 

implementation of any contingency 

measure will begin three months after 

quality assured data determine that an 

exceedance or violation of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS occurred within the 

previous year or upon notification from 

EPA that a contingency measure must 

be implemented. Another trigger is if 

any future year emissions inventory 

indicates that the Washington Area’s 

total emissions of NOX or VOC exceeded 

the levels in the attainment year 

inventory. If an audit of the attainment 

year and future year inventories does 

not reconcile the original estimated 

emissions with the exceedances, then 

the District, Maryland, and Virginia 

commit to implementing one or more of 

the contingency measures to ensure that 

future total emissions of NOX and VOC 

in the Washington Area do not exceed 

the levels in the attainment year 

inventory. 

c. Schedule and Procedure for Adoption 

and Implementation of Contingency 

Measures 

The District, Maryland, and Virginia 

have committed to implementing any 

contingency measure according to the 

following schedule: (1) Schedule onset: 

Notification received from EPA that a 

contingency measure must be 

implemented or three months after 

quality assured data determine that an 

exceedance or violation occurred within 

the previous year; (2) applicable 

regulation or program will be adopted 

six months following the schedule 

onset; (3) applicable regulation or 

program will be implemented six 

months following adoption; and, (4) 

compliance with regulation, or full 

program implementation, to be achieved 

within twelve months of adoption. 

The District and Metropolitan 

Washington Air Quality Committee 

(MWAQC) will use their regional 

coordination process to determine the 

contingency measure to be 

implemented. 

d. EPA’s Evaluation of the Contingency 

Plan for the Washington Area 

Based on EPA’s evaluation of the 

District’s, Maryland’s, and Virginia’s 

contingency plan for the Washington 

Area, which is provided in the TSD for 

this rulemaking available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: 

EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215, EPA finds 

that the contingency plan includes the 

required elements for CAA section 175A 

and relevant EPA guidance and will 

promptly correct any violation of the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
39032 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

20Maintenance areas are areas that were 

previously nonattainment for a particular NAAQS, 

but have been redesignated to attainment with an 

approved maintenance plan for the NAAQS. 

21As stated previously, EPA originally informed 

the District, Maryland, and Virginia that the 2014, 

2025, and 2030 MVEBs were adequate for use in 

transportation conformity analyses in letters dated 

July 18, 2018. EPA revised language in these letters 

and sent the revised letters to the District, 

Maryland, and Virginia on July 24, 2018. The 

original and revised letters are available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA–R03– 

OAR–2018–0215. 

NAAQS that occurs after the 

redesignation of the Washington Area. 

EPA has concluded that the District’s, 

Maryland’s, and Virginia’s joint 

maintenance plan adequately addresses 

the five basic components of a 

maintenance plan: Attainment 

inventory, maintenance demonstration, 

monitoring network, verification of 

continued attainment, and a 

contingency plan. Therefore, EPA 

concludes that the maintenance plan 

SIP revisions submitted by the District, 

Maryland, and Virginia meet the 

requirements of CAA section 175A. EPA 

is proposing to approve the 

maintenance plan as a revision to the 

District’s, Maryland’s, and Virginia’s 

SIPs. 

V. Have the District, Maryland, and 

Virginia adopted approvable MVEBs? 

A. What are the MVEBs? 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new 

transportation plans, programs, or 

projects that receive federal funding or 

support, such as the construction of new 

highways, must ‘‘conform’’ (i.e., be 

consistent with) the SIP. Conformity to 

the SIP means that transportation 

activities will not cause new air quality 

violations, worsen existing air quality 

problems, or delay timely attainment of 

the NAAQS or interim air quality 

milestones. Regulations at 40 CFR part 

93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and 

procedures for demonstrating and 

assuring conformity of transportation 

activities to a SIP. Transportation 

conformity is a requirement for 

nonattainment and maintenance areas.20

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIPs for nonattainment areas and 

maintenance plans for areas seeking 

redesignations to attainment of the 

ozone standard and maintenance areas. 

See the SIP Requirements Rule. These 

control strategy SIPs (including 

reasonable further progress plans and 

attainment plans) and maintenance 

plans must include MVEBs for criteria 

pollutants, including ozone, and their 

precursor pollutants (NOX and VOC for 

ozone) to address pollution from onroad transportation sources. The MVEBs 

are the portion of the total allowable 

emissions that are allocated to highway 

and transit vehicle use that, together 

with emissions from other sources in 

the area, will provide for attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. See 40 CFR 

93.101. 

Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an 

area seeking redesignation to attainment 

must be established, at minimum, for 

the last year of the maintenance plan. A 

state may adopt MVEBs for other years 

as well. The MVEB serves as a ceiling 

on emissions from an area’s planned 

transportation system. The MVEB 

concept is further explained in the 

preamble to the November 24, 1993 

Transportation Conformity Rule (58 FR 

62188). The preamble also describes 

how to establish the MVEB in the SIP 

and how to revise the MVEB, if needed, 

subsequent to initially establishing a 

MVEB in the SIP. The most recently 

approved MVEBs for the Washington 

Area originate from the attainment plan 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which EPA 

found adequate on February 7, 2013 (78 

FR 9044). 

B. What is the status of EPA’s adequacy 

determination for the proposed 2025 

and 2030 VOC and NOX MVEBs for the 

Washington Area? 

When reviewing submitted control 

strategy SIPs or maintenance plans 

containing MVEBs, EPA must 

affirmatively find that the MVEBs 

contained therein are adequate for use 

in determining transportation 

conformity. Once EPA affirmatively 

finds that the submitted MVEBs are 

adequate for transportation purposes, 

the MVEBs must be used by state and 

federal agencies in determining whether 

proposed transportation projects 

conform to the SIP as required by 

section 176(c) of the CAA. 

EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining adequacy of a MVEB are set 

out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process 

for determining adequacy consists of 

three basic steps: (1) Public notification 

of a SIP submission, (2) provision for a 

public comment period, and (3) EPA’s 

adequacy determination. This process 

for determining the adequacy of 

submitted MVEBs for transportation 

conformity purposes was initially 

outlined in EPA’s May 14, 1999 

guidance, ‘‘Conformity Guidance on 

Implementation of March 2, 1999, 

Conformity Court Decision.’’ EPA 

adopted regulations to codify the 

adequacy process in the Transportation 

Conformity Rule Amendments for the 

‘‘New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards and 

Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing 

Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule 

Amendments—Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Change,’’ 

on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). 

Additional information on the adequacy 

process for transportation conformity 

purposes is available in the proposed 

rule titled, ‘‘Transportation Conformity 

Rule Amendments: Response to Court 

Decision and Additional Rule Changes,’’ 

68 FR 38974, 38984 (June 30, 2003). 

The District’s, Maryland’s, and 

Virginia’s maintenance plan includes 

NOX and VOC MVEBs for the 

Washington Area for 2014 (the 

attainment year), 2025 (the intermediate 

year), and 2030 (the last year of the 

maintenance period). The District’s, 

Maryland’s, and Virginia’s maintenance 

plan SIP submission, including the NOX

and VOC MVEBs for the Washington 

Area, was available for public comment 

on EPA’s adequacy website on May 21, 

2018 at https://www.epa.gov/state-andlocal-transportation. The EPA public 

comment period on adequacy of the 

2014, 2025, and 2030 MVEBs for the 

Washington Area closed on June 20, 

2018. No comments on the submittal 

were received during the adequacy 

comment period. EPA reviewed the 

NOX and VOC MVEBs in accordance 

with the adequacy process in 40 CFR 

part 93 and found the MVEBs adequate. 

EPA anticipates it will publish a notice 

of adequacy for the 2014, 2025, and 

2030 MVEBs for the Washington Area 

before taking final action on this 

redesignation of the Washington Area. 

In letters dated July 24, 2018, EPA 

informed the District, Maryland, and 

Virginia that the 2014, 2025, and 2030 

MVEBs are adequate for use in 

transportation conformity analyses.21

EPA’s analysis of the MVEBs is 

included in the Notice of Adequacy 

TSD, which is included in the docket 

for this rulemaking available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: 

EPA–R03–OAR–2018–0215. 

The MVEBs were calculated using the 

most current USEPA Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model 

(MOVES2014a) and regional travel 

demand forecasting model at the time of 

the submittal. These MVEBs, when 

considered together with all other 

emissions sources, are consistent with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone 

standard. The MVEBs are shown in 

Table 8. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39033 

TABLE 8—WASHINGTON, DC-MD-VA MAINTENANCE PLAN ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS BUDGETS

Year 

NOX on-road 

emissions 

(tpd) 

VOC on-road 

emissions 

(tpd) 

Attainment Year 2014 Emission and Budget .......................................................................................................... 136.8 61.3 

Intermediate Year 2025 Emission and Budget ....................................................................................................... 40.7 33.2 

Final Year 2030 Emission and Budget .................................................................................................................... 27.4 24.1 

C. What is a safety margin and how was 

it allocated? 

EPA’s transportation conformity 

regulations allow for the use of a safety 

margin, also referred to as a 

‘‘transportation buffer’’, in the 

development of MVEBs for maintenance 

plans. A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the 

difference between the attainment level 

of emissions (from all sources) and the 

projected level of emissions (from all 

sources) in the maintenance plan. All or 

a portion of these transportation buffers 

can be allotted to mobile source 

inventories to develop MVEBs. 

Table 4 shows the difference in total 

emissions for NOX and VOC from all 

sources between the attainment year 

(2014) and the intermediate year (2025) 

as well as the attainment year (2014) 

and the final maintenance year (2030). 

These differences in emissions provide 

estimates of the total available 

transportation buffers for NOX and VOC 

in 2025 and 2030. The total available 

transportation buffers for NOX is 114.9 

tpd in 2025 and 126.4 tpd in 2030 and 

for VOC the total available 

transportation buffer is 15.0 tpd in 2025 

and 14.6 tpd in 2030. The District, 

Maryland, and Virginia used 20% of the 

total available transportation buffer to 

develop the second set of mobile 

budgets for 2025 and 2030 in the 

maintenance plan. The transportation 

buffers add 8.1 tpd of NOX and 6.6 tpd 

of VOC to the 2025 emission 

inventories, and 5.5 tpd of NOX and 4.8 

tpd of VOC to the 2030 emission 

inventories. The MVEBs with the 

transportation buffers described 

previously for the Washington Area are 

shown in Table 9. 

TABLE 9—WASHINGTON, DC-MD-VA MAINTENANCE PLAN ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS BUDGETS WITH

TRANSPORTATION BUFFERS

Year 

NOX on-road 

emissions 

(tpd) 

VOC on-road 

emissions 

(tpd) 

Attainment Year 2014 Emissions & Budget ............................................................................................................ 136.8 61.3 

Predicted 2025 Emission ......................................................................................................................................... 40.7 33.2 

Transportation Buffer ............................................................................................................................................... 8.1 6.6 

Intermediate Year 2025 Budget .............................................................................................................................. 48.8 39.8 

Predicted 2030 Emission ......................................................................................................................................... 27.4 24.1 

Transportation Buffer ............................................................................................................................................... 5.5 4.8 

Final Year 2030 Budget ........................................................................................................................................... 32.9 28.9 

These two sets of MVEBs (with and 

without transportation buffers) have 

been developed for both milestone years 

(2025 and 2030). As can be seen in 

Table 10, the MVEBs that include the 

transportation buffer (Table 9), remain 

below the emission levels of the 

maintenance inventory. 

TABLE 10—MAINTENANCE INVENTORY: NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS IN THE WASHINGTON AREA, INCLUDING MVEBS WITH

TRANSPORTATION BUFFER, 2014 TO 2030 

Source category 

NOX

(tpd) 

VOC 

(tpd) 

2014 2025 2030 2014 2025 2030 

Point ................................................................................................................................. 64.9 66.0 68.5 7.7 8.8 9.4 

Non-Point (Area) .............................................................................................................. 9.6 9.9 10.0 139.3 153.7 160.3 

M–A–R ............................................................................................................................. 19.2 21.4 22.4 2.4 2.6 2.6 

Nonroad Mobile ................................................................................................................ 52.0 29.6 27.8 47.5 44.9 47.2 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................................................................... 136.8 48.8 32.9 61.3 39.8 28.9 

Quasi-Point ...................................................................................................................... 14.4 14.4 14.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 296.9 190.1 176.0 259.4 251.0 249.6 

D 2014–2025 .................................................................................................................... 106.8 8.4 

D 2014–2030 .................................................................................................................... 120.9 9.8 

The District, Maryland, and Virginia 

will only use the MVEBs with 

transportation buffers, shown in Table 

9, as needed in situations where the 

conformity analysis must be based on 

different data, models, or planning 

assumptions, including, but not limited 

to, updates to demographic, land use, or 

project-related assumptions, than were 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
39034 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

used to create the first set of MVEBs in 

the maintenance plan. The technical 

analyses used to demonstrate 

compliance with the MVEBs and the 

need, if any, to use transportation 

buffers will be fully documented in the 

conformity analysis and follow the 

Transportation Planning Board’s (TPB) 

interagency consultation procedures. 

Regulations governing the interagency 

consultation process adopted by the 

District, Maryland, Virginia, and the 

TPB are as follows: 

1. District of Columbia: Title 20 

Environment, Chapter 20–15 

General and Transportation 

Conformity, Rule Numbers 20– 

1503, 20–1504, 20–1505, 20–1506, 

20–1507 

2. Maryland: Title 26 Department of 

Environment, Subtitle 11 Air 

Quality, Chapter 26 Conformity, 

Regulation Numbers 26.11.26.04, 

26.11.26.05, 26.11.26.06, 

26.11.26.07, 26.11.26.08 

3. Virginia: 9VAC5 Chapter 151 

Regulation for Transportation 

Conformity Section 70 Consultation 

(9VAC5–151–70) 

4. Transportation Planning Board: 

Report titled ‘‘Transportation 

Planning Board Consultation 

Procedures with respect to 

Transportation Conformity 

Regulations Governing TPB Plans 

and Programs,’’ May 20, 1998 

EPA finds that the District, Maryland, 

and Virginia continue to demonstrate 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard 

with both sets of MVEBs, including the 

MVEBs with the transportation buffers. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve, 

as revisions to the District’s, Maryland’s, 

and Virginia’s SIPs, the MVEBs 

contained in this maintenance plan for 

the Washington Area. 

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

requests from Maryland and Virginia to 

redesignate to attainment their 

respective portions of the Washington 

Area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA 

is not proposing to approve the 

redesignation request from the District 

and will address the District’s 

redesignation request in a separate 

rulemaking action. EPA is also 

proposing to approve, as a revision to 

the District’s, Maryland’s, and Virginia’s 

SIPs, the joint maintenance plan 

submitted by the District, Maryland, and 

Virginia. The joint maintenance plan 

demonstrates maintenance of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS through 2030 in the 

Washington Area and includes 2014, 

2025, and 2030 MVEBs for NOX and 

VOCs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Finally, EPA has found adequate and is 

proposing to approve these 2014, 2025, 

and 2030 NOX and VOC MVEBs for the 

Washington Area. EPA is soliciting 

public comments on the issues 

discussed in this document. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. 

VII. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information 

that: (1) Are generated or developed 

before the commencement of a 

voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 

are prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 

clear, imminent and substantial danger 

to the public health or environment; or 

(4) are required by law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their federal 

counterparts. . . .’’ The opinion 

concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, 

therefore, documents or other 

information needed for civil or criminal 

enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on federal enforcement 

authorities, EPA may at any time invoke 

its authority under the CAA, including, 

for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 

or 213, to enforce the requirements or 

prohibitions of the state plan, 

independently of any state enforcement 

effort. In addition, citizen enforcement 

under section 304 of the CAA is 

likewise unaffected by this, or any, state 

audit privilege or immunity law. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the 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, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39035 

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 proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866. 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The action approving Maryland’s and 

Virginia’s redesignation request for their 

respective portions of the Washington 

Area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as well 

as the District’s, Maryland’s, and 

Virginia’s maintenance plan for the 

Washington Area, is not approved to 

apply on any Indian reservation land as 

defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 24, 2018. 

Cosmo Servidio, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16882 Filed 8–7–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2017–0699; FRL–9981– 

42—Region 6] 

Air Plan Approval; Arkansas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to approve portions of the 

revisions to the Arkansas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Arkansas Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) on 

March 24, 2017. Most of the revisions 

are administrative in nature and make 

the SIP current with Federal rules. The 

EPA is also proposing to make 

ministerial changes to the Code of 

Federal Register (CFR) to reflect SIP 

actions pertaining to the Arkansas 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before September 7, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by EPA–R06–OAR–2017– 

0699, at http://www.regulations.gov or 

via email to paige.carrie@epa.gov. For 

additional information on how to 

submit comments see the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the direct final rule located in the rules 

section of this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Carrie Paige, (214) 665–6521, 

paige.carrie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this issue of the 

Federal Register, the EPA is approving 

the State’s SIP submittal as a direct rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no relevant adverse comments 

are received in response to this action 

no further activity is contemplated. If 

the EPA receives relevant adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. The EPA will not 

institute a second comment period. Any 

parties interested in commenting on this 

action should do so at this time. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule, which is located in the 

rules section of this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

Dated: July 31, 2018. 

Anne Idsal, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16905 Filed 8–7–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0492; FRL–9981– 

67—Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Delaware; Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2010 1-Hour 

Sulfur Dioxide Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of a state implementation plan 

(SIP) revision submittal from the State 

of Delaware. This revision addresses the 

infrastructure requirement for interstate 

transport of pollution with respect to 

the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS). This action is being taken 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 7, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2013–0492 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS