49474 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: July 29, 2014. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19517 Filed 8–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0281; FRL– 9915–49– 

Region–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Redesignation Request and 

Associated Maintenance Plan for the 

Maryland Portion of the MartinsburgHagerstown, WV-MD Nonattainment 

Area for the 1997 Annual Fine 

Particulate Matter Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the State of Maryland’s request to 

redesignate to attainment the Maryland 

portion of the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, 

WV-MD Nonattainment Area 

(Martinsburg Area or Area) for the 1997 

annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS). The Maryland portion of the 

Martinsburg Area is comprised of 

Washington County, Maryland. EPA has 

determined that the Martinsburg Area 

attained the standard and continues to 

attain the standard. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to approve, as a revision to 

the Maryland State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), the Washington County 

maintenance plan to show maintenance 

of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

through 2025 for the Maryland portion 

of the Area. The maintenance plan 

includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) mobile vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) for 

Washington County, Maryland for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA 

is proposing to approve for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

These actions are being taken under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 22, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0281 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0281, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

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

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 

0281. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, Air and Radiation 

Management Administration, 1800 

Washington Boulevard, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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

by email at powers.marilyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Requirements 

A. Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment 

B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan 

III. Summary of Proposed Actions 

IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on 

Proposed Actions 

A. Effect of the Supreme Court and D.C. 

Circuit Court’s Decisions Regarding 

EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR) 

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

Court Decision Regarding the PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 of Part 

D of Title I of the CAA 

V. EPA’s Analysis of Maryland’s SIP 

Submittal 

A. Redesignation Request 

B. Maintenance Plan 

C. Transportation Conformity 

VI. Proposed Actions 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The first air quality standards for 

PM2.5 were established on July 18, 1997 

(62 FR 38652). EPA promulgated an 

annual standard at a level of 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), 

based on a three-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations (the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard). In the same 

rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour 

standard of 65 mg/m3 based on a threeyear average of the 98th percentile of 24- 

hour concentrations. 

On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944, 1014), 

EPA published air quality area 

designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In that rulemaking action, EPA 

designated the Martinsburg Area as 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The Martinsburg Area is 

comprised of Washington County in 

Maryland and Berkeley County in West 

Virginia. See 40 CFR 81.321 (Maryland) 

and 40 CFR 81.349 (West Virginia). 

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), 

EPA retained the annual average 

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

hour standard to 35 mg/m3, based again 

on the three-year average of the 98th 

percentile of the 24-hour concentrations 

(the 2006 annual PM2.5 standard). On 

November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), EPA 

published designations for the 2006 24- 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 49475 

hour PM2.5 standard, which became 

effective on December 14, 2009. In that 

rulemaking action, EPA designated the 

Martinsburg Area as attainment for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 

58737 and 40 CFR 81.321 (Maryland) 

and also see 74 FR 58775 and 40 CFR 

81.349 (West Virginia). Since the 

Martinsburg Area is designated 

nonattainment for the annual NAAQS 

promulgated in 1997, today’s proposed 

rulemaking action addresses the 

redesignation to attainment only for this 

standard. 

On November 20, 2009 (74 FR 60199), 

EPA determined that the Martinsburg 

Area had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c) 

and based on this determination, the 

requirements for States that comprise 

the Martinsburg Area to submit 

attainment demonstrations and 

associated reasonably available control 

measures (RACM), reasonable further 

progress (RFP) plans, contingency 

measures, and other planning SIP 

revisions related to the attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS are 

suspended until such time as: (1) the 

Area is redesignated to attainment for 

the standard, at which time the 

requirements no longer apply or (2) EPA 

determines that the Area has again 

violated the standard, at which time 

such plans are required to be submitted. 

On January 20, 2012 (77 FR 1411), EPA 

determined that the Martinsburg Area 

had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS by the statutory attainment date 

of April 5, 2010. 

On December 12, 2013, the State of 

Maryland, through the Maryland 

Department of the Environment (MDE), 

formally submitted a request to 

redesignate the Maryland portion of the 

Martinsburg Area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. Concurrently, MDE submitted 

a maintenance plan for Washington 

County as a SIP revision to ensure 

continued attainment throughout the 

Maryland portion of the Area over the 

next 10 years. In addition, the 

maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 

2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs used for 

transportation conformity purposes for 

Washington County, Maryland for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

II. EPA’s Requirements 

A. Criteria for Redesignation to 

Attainment 

The CAA provides the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

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

redesignation providing that: (1) EPA 

determines that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS; (2) EPA has fully 

approved the applicable 

implementation plan for the area under 

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

determines that the improvement in air 

quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the 

applicable SIP and applicable Federal 

air pollutant control regulations and 

other permanent and enforceable 

reductions; (4) EPA has fully approved 

a maintenance plan for the area as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA; and, (5) the state 

containing such area has met all 

requirements applicable to the area 

under section 110 and part D of the 

CAA. Each of these requirements are 

discussed in section V. (EPA’s Analysis 

of Maryland’s SIP Submittal) of this 

proposed rulemaking action. 

EPA has provided guidance on 

redesignation in the ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the CAA Amendments of 

1990,’’ (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) 

(the ‘‘General Preamble’’) and has 

provided further guidance on processing 

redesignation requests in the following 

documents: (1) ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from John Calcagni, Director, Air 

Quality Management Division, 

September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘1992 Calcagni Memorandum’’); 

(2) ‘‘SIP Actions Submitted in Response 

to CAA Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from 

John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, October 28, 1992; 

and, (3) ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

(Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas 

Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from Mary 

D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994. 

B. Requirements of a Maintenance Plan 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. Under 

section 175A of the CAA, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 

years after approval of a redesignation of 

an area to attainment. Eight years after 

the redesignation, the state must submit 

a revised maintenance plan 

demonstrating that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for the 10 

years following the initial 10-year 

period. To address the possibility of 

future NAAQS violations, the 

maintenance plan must contain such 

contingency measures, with a schedule 

for implementation, as EPA deems 

necessary to assure prompt correction of 

any future PM2.5 violations. 

The 1992 Calcagni Memorandum 

provides additional guidance on the 

content of a maintenance plan. The 

memorandum states that a PM2.5

maintenance plan should address the 

following provisions: (1) An attainment 

emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance 

demonstration showing maintenance for 

10 years; (3) a commitment to maintain 

the existing monitoring network; (4) 

verification of continued attainment; 

and, (5) a contingency plan to prevent 

or correct future violations of the 

NAAQS. 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIP revisions and maintenance plans for 

nonattainment areas and for areas 

seeking redesignation to attainment for 

a given NAAQS. These emission control 

strategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP and 

attainment demonstration SIP revisions) 

and maintenance plans create MVEBs 

based on onroad mobile source 

emissions for the relevant criteria 

pollutants and/or their precursors, 

where appropriate, to address pollution 

from onroad transportation sources. The 

MVEBs are the portions of the total 

allowable emissions that are allocated to 

onroad vehicle use that, together with 

emissions from all other sources in the 

area, will provide attainment, RFP, or 

maintenance, as applicable. The budget 

serves as a ceiling on emissions from an 

area’s planned transportation system. 

Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB for an 

area seeking a redesignation to 

attainment is established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. 

The maintenance plan for Washington 

County includes the 2017 and 2025 

PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for 

transportation conformity purposes. The 

transportation conformity determination 

for the Area is further discussed in 

section V.C. (Transportation 

Conformity) of this proposed 

rulemaking action and a technical 

support document (TSD) dated April 3, 

2014 is available in the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking action. 

III. Summary of Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to take several 

rulemaking actions related to the 

redesignation of the Maryland portion of 

the Area to attainment for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing 

to find that the Maryland portion of the 

Area meets the requirements for 

redesignation for the 1997 annual PM2.5

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

the CAA. EPA is proposing to approve 

the maintenance plan for the Maryland 

portion of the Area as a revision to the 

Maryland SIP for the 1997 annual PM2.5

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

49476 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1As defined in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, 

section (1)(c). A monitoring site’s design value is 

compared to the level of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS to determine compliance with the 

standard. 

NAAQS. The approval of a maintenance 

plan is one of the CAA criteria for 

redesignation of the Area to attainment. 

The Washington County maintenance 

plan is designed to ensure continued 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard in the Maryland portion of the 

Area for 10 years after redesignation. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

MVEBs for PM2.5 and NOX emissions for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, which 

are included as part of the Washington 

County maintenance plan. 

EPA previously determined that the 

Martinsburg Area has attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 74 FR 60199 

(November 20, 2009) and 77 FR 1411 

(January 10, 2012) and, in the 

rulemaking action proposing approval 

of the redesignation request for the West 

Virginia portion of the Area, EPA 

proposed to find that the Area continues 

to attain the standard, 79 FR 25540 (May 

5, 2014). EPA is, therefore, proposing to 

approve MDE’s request to change the 

designation for the Maryland portion of 

the Martinsburg Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This action 

does not impact the designation of the 

West Virginia portion of the Area, for 

which EPA is taking separate action. See 

79 FR 25540, May 5, 2014 for 

information related to the redesignation 

of the West Virginia portion of the Area, 

Docket I.D. EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0690. 

IV. Effects of Recent Court Decisions on 

Proposed Actions 

In this proposed rulemaking action, 

EPA considers the effects of three legal 

decisions on this redesignation. EPA 

first considers the effects of the D.C. 

Circuit Court and U.S. Supreme Court’s 

decisions in EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. 

Cir. 2012), rev’d, No. 12–1182 (S. Ct. 

April 29, 2014). The Supreme Court 

reversed the D.C. Circuit Court decision 

vacating and remanding CSAPR. EPA is 

also considering the effect of the January 

4, 2013 D.C. Circuit decision remanding 

to EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air Fine 

Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72 FR 

20586, April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’). Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. 

EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

A. Effect of the Supreme Court and D.C. 

Circuit Court’s Decisions Regarding 

EPA’s CSAPR 

EPA has considered the recent 

decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court 

and the D.C. Circuit Court regarding 

EPA’s CSAPR, and has concluded that 

the decisions do not affect the Agency’s 

proposal to redesignate the Maryland 

portion of the Martinsburg Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

promulgated CSAPR (76 FR 48208, 

August 8, 2011) to replace the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR), which has been 

in place since 2005. See 76 FR 59517. 

Both CSAPR and CAIR require 

significant reductions in emissions of 

SO2 and NOX from electric generating 

units (EGUs) to limit the interstate 

transport of these pollutants and the 

ozone and fine particulate matter they 

form in the atmosphere. The D.C. 

Circuit Court initially vacated CAIR, 

North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately 

remanded the rule to EPA without 

vacatur to preserve the environmental 

benefits provided by CAIR, North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). After staying the 

implementation of CSAPR on December 

20, 2011 and instructing EPA to 

continue to implement CAIR in the 

interim, on August 21, 2012, the D.C. 

Circuit Court issued a decision to vacate 

CSAPR, with further instruction to 

continue administering CAIR ‘‘pending 

the promulgation of a valid 

replacement.’’ EME Homer City 

Generation L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 

(D.C. Cir. 2012). On April 29, 2014, the 

Supreme Court reversed the opinion of 

the D.C. Circuit Court and remanded the 

matter to the D.C. Circuit Court for 

further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer 

City Generation, L.P., No. 12–1182 (S. 

Ct. April 29, 2014). 

In its submission, Maryland does not 

rely on either CAIR or CSAPR for 

emission reductions that contributed to 

the Martinsburg Area’s attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, nor does the 

State rely on either of the rules to show 

maintenance of the standard in the 

Maryland portion of the Area for 10 

years following redesignation. However, 

because CAIR was promulgated in 2005 

and incentivized sources and states to 

begin achieving early emission 

reductions, the air quality data 

examined by EPA in issuing a final 

determination of attainment for the 

Martinsburg Area in 2009 (November 

20, 2009, 74 FR 60119) and the air 

quality data from the Area since 2005 

necessarily reflect reductions in 

emissions from upwind sources as a 

result of CAIR. Nonetheless, in this case 

EPA believes that it is appropriate to 

redesignate the Maryland portion of the 

Area. Modeling conducted by EPA 

during the CSAPR rulemaking process, 

which used a baseline emissions 

scenario that ‘‘backed out’’ the effects of 

CAIR, see 76 FR at 48223, projected that 

the counties in the Martinsburg Area 

would have PM2.5 annual design 

values 1 below the level of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard for 2012 and 

2014 without taking into account 

emission reductions from CAIR or 

CSAPR. See Appendix B of EPA’s ‘‘Air 

Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical 

Support Document,’’ (Page B–46), which 

is available in the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking action. In 

addition, the 2010–2012 qualityassured, quality-controlled, and 

certified monitoring data for the 

Martinsburg Area confirms that 2012 

PM2.5 annual design values for each 

monitoring site in the Area remained 

well below the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, and, thus, the entire Area 

continued to attain the standard in 

2012. See Table 1 of this proposed 

rulemaking action for the Martinsburg 

Area’s monitoring data for 2010–2012. 

The status of CSAPR is not relevant to 

this redesignation. CSAPR was 

promulgated in June 2011, and the rule 

was stayed by the D.C. Circuit Court just 

six months later, before the trading 

programs it created were scheduled to 

go into effect. Therefore, the 

Martinsburg Area’s attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard cannot have 

been a result of any emission reductions 

associated with CSAPR. In sum, neither 

the current status of CAIR nor the 

current status of CSAPR affects any of 

the criteria for proposed approval of this 

redesignation request for the Maryland 

portion of the Area. 

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

Circuit Court Decision Regarding the 

PM2.5 Implementation Under Subpart 4 

of Part D of Title I of the CAA 

1. Background 

On January 4, 2013, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the 

D.C. Circuit Court remanded to EPA the 

‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule’’ (72 FR 20586, 

April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). The D.C. Circuit Court 

found that EPA erred in implementing 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 49477 

2Applicable requirements of the CAA that come 

due subsequent to the area’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request remain applicable until a 

redesignation is approved, but are not required as 

a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of 

the CAA. 

general implementation provisions of 

subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA 

(subpart 1), rather than the particulatematter-specific provisions of subpart 4 

of Part D of Title I (subpart 4). 

Prior to the January 4, 2013 decision, 

the states had worked towards meeting 

the air quality goals of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance with EPA 

regulations and guidance derived from 

subpart 1. Subsequent to this decision, 

in rulemaking that responds to the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s remand, EPA took this 

history into account by setting a new 

deadline for any remaining submissions 

that may be required for moderate 

nonattainment areas as a result of the 

Court’s decision regarding subpart 4. 

On June 2, 2014 (79 FR 31566), EPA 

finalized the ‘‘Identification of 

Nonattainment Classification and 

Deadlines for Submission of SIP 

Provisions for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS’’ rule (the PM2.5

Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline 

Rule). The rule identifies the 

classification under subpart 4 for areas 

currently designated nonattainment for 

the 1997 annual and/or 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standards and sets a new deadline 

for states to submit attainment-related 

and other SIP elements required for 

these areas pursuant to subpart 4. The 

rule also identifies EPA guidance that is 

currently available regarding subpart 4 

requirements. The PM2.5 Subpart 4 

Classification and Deadline Rule 

specifies December 31, 2014 as the 

deadline for the states to submit any 

additional attainment-related SIP 

elements that may be needed to meet 

the applicable requirements of subpart 4 

for areas currently designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual and/ 

or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and to 

submit SIPs addressing the 

nonattainment NSR requirements in 

subpart 4. Therefore, as explained in 

detail in the following section, any 

additional attainment-related SIP 

elements that may be needed for the 

Maryland portion of the Area to meet 

the applicable requirements of subpart 4 

were not due at the time that MDE 

submitted its redesignation request for 

the Maryland portion of the Area. 

Maryland submitted its request for 

redesignating the Maryland portion of 

the Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS on December 12, 2013. 

2. Proposal on This Issue 

EPA has considered the effect of the 

D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 

ruling and the PM2.5 Subpart 4 

Nonattainment Classification and 

Deadline Rule on Maryland’s request for 

redesignation of the Maryland portion of 

the Area. In this proposed rulemaking 

action, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 

2013 decision does not prevent EPA 

from redesignating the Maryland 

portion of the Area to attainment. Even 

in light of the D.C. Circuit Court’s 

decision, redesignation for the Area is 

appropriate under the CAA and EPA’s 

longstanding interpretations of the CAA 

provisions regarding redesignation. EPA 

first explains its longstanding 

interpretation that requirements that are 

imposed, or that become due, after a 

complete redesignation request is 

submitted for an area that is attaining 

the standard, are not applicable for 

purposes of evaluating a redesignation 

request. Second, EPA then shows that, 

even if EPA applies the subpart 4 

requirements to the redesignation 

request for the Maryland portion of the 

Area and disregards the provisions of its 

1997 annual PM2.5 implementation rule 

recently remanded by the D.C. Circuit 

Court, the State’s request for 

redesignation of the Area still qualify for 

approval. EPA’s discussion takes into 

account the effect of the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s ruling and the proposed PM2.5

Subpart 4 Classification and Deadline 

Rule on the Area’s maintenance plan, 

which EPA views as approvable when 

subpart 4 requirements are considered. 

a. Applicable Requirements Under 

Subpart 4 for Purposes of Evaluating the 

Redesignation Request for the Maryland 

Portion of the Martinsburg Area 

With respect to the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s January 4, 2013 ruling rejected 

EPA’s reasons for implementing the 

PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with 

the provisions of subpart 1, and 

remanded that matter to EPA, so that it 

could address implementation of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS under 

subpart 4, in addition to subpart 1. For 

the purposes of evaluating the 

redesignation request for the Maryland 

portion of the Area, to the extent that 

implementation under subpart 4 would 

impose additional requirements for 

areas designated nonattainment, EPA 

believes that those requirements are not 

‘‘applicable’’ for the purposes of CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not 

required to consider subpart 4 

requirements with respect to the 

redesignation of the Maryland portion of 

the Area. Under its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA, EPA has 

interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, 

as a threshold matter, that the part D 

provisions which are ‘‘applicable’’ and 

which must be approved in order for 

EPA to redesignate an area include only 

those which came due prior to a state’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See 1992 Calcagni 

Memorandum. See also ‘‘State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993 (Shapiro 

memorandum); Final Redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 

12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final 

Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 

FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003); 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 

(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation and expressly rejecting 

Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of 

‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is 

‘‘whatever should have been in the plan 

at the time of attainment rather than 

whatever actually was in the plan and 

already implemented or due at the time 

of attainment’’).2 In this case, at the time 

that States submitted their redesignation 

requests, the requirements under 

subpart 4 were not due. 

EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the redesignation of the 

Maryland portion of the Area, the 

subpart 4 requirements were not due at 

the time Maryland submitted the 

redesignation request is in keeping with 

the EPA’s interpretation of subpart 2 

requirements for subpart 1 ozone areas 

redesignated subsequent to the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s decision in South Coast 

Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 

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

D.C. Circuit Court found that EPA was 

not permitted to implement the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard solely under 

subpart 1, and held that EPA was 

required under the statute to implement 

the standard under the ozone-specific 

requirements of subpart 2 as well. 

Subsequent to the South Coast decision, 

in evaluating and acting upon 

redesignation requests for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard that were 

submitted to EPA for areas under 

subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA that 

‘‘applicable requirements,’’ for purposes 

of evaluating a redesignation, are those 

that had been due at the time the 

redesignation request was submitted. 

See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of 

Manitowoc County and Door County 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

49478 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and 

distinguished in a recent D.C. Circuit Court 

decision that addressed retroactivity in a quite 

different context, where, unlike the situation here, 

EPA sought to give its regulations retroactive effect. 

National Petrochemical and Refiners Ass’n v. EPA. 

630 F.3d 145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing denied 

643 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. 

Ct. 571 (2011). 

4PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 

micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 

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

EPA, therefore, did not consider subpart 

2 requirements to be ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of evaluating whether the 

area should be redesignated under 

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

EPA’s interpretation derives from the 

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

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

be redesignated, a state must meet ‘‘all 

requirements ‘applicable’ to the area 

under section 110 and part D.’’ Section 

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

must have fully approved the 

‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the area seeking 

redesignation. These two sections read 

together support EPA’s interpretation of 

‘‘applicable’’ as only those requirements 

that came due prior to submission of a 

complete redesignation request. First, 

holding states to an ongoing obligation 

to adopt new CAA requirements that 

arose after the state submitted its 

redesignation request, in order to be 

redesignated, would make it 

problematic or impossible for EPA to act 

on redesignation requests in accordance 

with the 18-month deadline Congress 

set for EPA action in section 

107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ were interpreted to be a 

continuing flow of requirements with no 

reasonable limitation, states, after 

submitting a redesignation request, 

would be forced continuously to make 

additional SIP submissions that in turn 

would require EPA to undertake further 

notice-and-comment rulemaking actions 

to act on those submissions. This would 

create a regime of unceasing rulemaking 

that would delay action on the 

redesignation request beyond the 18- 

month timeframe provided by the CAA 

for this purpose. 

Second, a fundamental premise for 

redesignating a nonattainment area to 

attainment is that the area has attained 

the relevant NAAQS due to emission 

reductions from existing controls. Thus, 

an area for which a redesignation 

request has been submitted would have 

already attained the NAAQS as a result 

of satisfying statutory requirements that 

came due prior to the submission of the 

request. Absent a showing that 

unadopted and unimplemented 

requirements are necessary for future 

maintenance, it is reasonable to view 

the requirements applicable for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request as including only those SIP 

requirements that have already come 

due. These are the requirements that led 

to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, 

for redesignation approval, that a state 

also satisfy additional SIP requirements 

coming due after the state submits its 

complete redesignation request, and 

while EPA is reviewing it, would 

compel the state to do more than is 

necessary to attain the NAAQS, without 

a showing that the additional 

requirements are necessary for 

maintenance. 

In the context of this redesignation, 

the timing and nature of the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s January 4, 2013 decision in 

NRDC v. EPA and EPA’s November 21, 

2013 proposed PM2.5 Subpart 4 

Nonattainment Classification and 

Deadline Rule compound the 

consequences of imposing requirements 

that come due after the redesignation 

request is submitted. Maryland 

submitted its redesignation request for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS on 

December 12, 2013, which is prior to the 

deadline by which the Maryland portion 

of the Area is required to meet the 

applicable requirements pursuant to 

subpart 4. 

To require Maryland’s fullycompleted and pending redesignation 

request for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS to comply now with 

requirements of subpart 4 that the D.C. 

Circuit Court announced only in 

January 2013 and for which the 

deadline to comply has not yet come, 

would be to give retroactive effect to 

such requirements and provide the State 

a unique and earlier deadline for 

compliance solely on the basis of 

submitting its redesignation request for 

the Maryland portion of the Area. The 

D.C. Circuit Court recognized the 

inequity of this type of retroactive 

impact in Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 

F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),3 where it 

upheld the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling 

refusing to make retroactive EPA’s 

determination that the St. Louis area did 

not meet its attainment deadline. In that 

case, petitioners urged the D.C. Circuit 

Court to make EPA’s nonattainment 

determination effective as of the date 

that the statute required, rather than the 

later date on which EPA actually made 

the determination. The D.C. Circuit 

Court rejected this view, stating that 

applying it ‘‘would likely impose large 

costs on States, which would face fines 

and suits for not implementing air 

pollution prevention plans . . . even 

though they were not on notice at the 

time.’’ Id. at 68. Similarly, it would be 

unreasonable to penalize the States by 

rejecting their redesignation request for 

an area that is already attaining the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard and that met all 

applicable requirements known to be in 

effect at the time of the requests. For 

EPA now to reject the redesignation 

requests solely because the States did 

not expressly address subpart 4 

requirements which have not yet come 

due, would inflict the same unfairness 

condemned by the D.C. Circuit Court in 

Sierra Club v. Whitman. 

b. Subpart 4 Requirements and 

Maryland Redesignation Request 

Even if EPA were to take the view that 

the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision requires that, in the context of 

pending redesignations for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard, subpart 4 

requirements were due and in effect at 

the time Maryland submitted its 

redesignation request, EPA proposes to 

determine that the Maryland portion of 

the Area still qualifies for redesignation 

to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard. As explained subsequently, 

EPA believes that the redesignation 

request for the Maryland portion of the 

Area, though not expressed in terms of 

subpart 4 requirements, substantively 

meets the requirements of that subpart 

for purposes of redesignating the 

Maryland portion of the Area to 

attainment. 

With respect to evaluating the 

relevant substantive requirements of 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the Maryland portion of the Area, EPA 

notes that subpart 4 incorporates 

components of subpart 1, which 

contains general air quality planning 

requirements for areas designated as 

nonattainment. See section 172(c). 

Subpart 4 itself contains specific 

planning and scheduling requirements 

for coarse particulate matter (PM10) 4

nonattainment areas, and under the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 decision 

in NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory 

requirements also apply for PM2.5

nonattainment areas. EPA has 

longstanding general guidance that 

interprets the 1990 amendments to the 

CAA, making recommendations to states 

for meeting the statutory requirements 

for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See the 

General Preamble. In the General 

Preamble, EPA discussed the 

relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 

SIP requirements, and pointed out that 

subpart 1 requirements were to an 

extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally 

related to, the more specific PM10

requirements’’ (57 FR 13538, April 16, 

1992). The subpart 1 requirements 

include, among other things, provisions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 49479 

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

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

redesignation request is discussed in this 

rulemaking action. 

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

milestone requirements, contingency measures. 

7As EPA has explained previously, we do not 

believe that the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision should be interpreted so as to impose these 

requirements on the states retroactively. Sierra Club 

v. Whitman, supra. 

for attainment demonstrations, RACM, 

RFP, emissions inventories, and 

contingency measures. 

For the purposes of this redesignation 

request, in order to identify any 

additional requirements which would 

apply under subpart 4, consistent with 

EPA’s June 2, 2014 PM2.5 Subpart 4 

Nonattainment Classification and 

Deadline Rule, EPA is considering the 

Maryland portion of the Area to be a 

‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

As EPA explained in its June 2, 2014 

rule, section 188 of the CAA provides 

that all areas designated nonattainment 

areas under subpart 4 are initially 

classified by operation of law as 

‘‘moderate’’ nonattainment areas, and 

will remain moderate nonattainment 

areas unless and until EPA reclassifies 

the area as a ‘‘serious’’ nonattainment 

area. Accordingly, EPA believes that it 

is appropriate to limit the evaluation of 

the potential impact of subpart 4 

requirements to those that would be 

applicable to moderate nonattainment 

areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 

4 apply to moderate nonattainment 

areas and include the following: (1) An 

approved permit program for 

construction of new and modified major 

stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); 

(2) an attainment demonstration (section 

189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM 

(section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) 

quantitative milestones demonstrating 

RFP toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date (section 

189(c)). 

The permit requirements of subpart 4, 

as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A), 

refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit 

provisions requirements of sections 172 

and 173 to PM10, without adding to 

them. Consequently, EPA believes that 

section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself 

impose for redesignation purposes any 

additional requirements for moderate 

areas beyond those contained in subpart 

1.5 In any event, in the context of 

redesignation, EPA has long relied on 

the interpretation that a fully approved 

nonattainment NSR program is not 

considered an applicable requirement 

for redesignation, provided the area can 

maintain the standard with a prevention 

of significant deterioration (PSD) 

program after redesignation. A detailed 

rationale for this view is described in a 

memorandum from Mary Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ See also 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). 

With respect to the specific 

attainment planning requirements under 

subpart 4,6 when EPA evaluates a 

redesignation request under either 

subpart 1 or 4, any area that is attaining 

the PM2.5 standards is viewed as having 

satisfied the attainment planning 

requirements for these subparts. For 

redesignations, EPA has for many years 

interpreted attainment-linked 

requirements as not applicable for areas 

attaining the standard. In the General 

Preamble, EPA stated that: ‘‘The 

requirements for RFP will not apply in 

evaluating a request for redesignation to 

attainment since, at a minimum, the air 

quality data for the area must show that 

the area has already attained. Showing 

that the State will make RFP towards 

attainment will, therefore, have no 

meaning at that point.’’ 

The General Preamble also explained 

that: ‘‘The section 172(c)(9) 

requirements are directed at ensuring 

RFP and attainment by the applicable 

date. These requirements no longer 

apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for 

redesignation. Furthermore, section 

175A for maintenance plans . . . 

provides specific requirements for 

contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas.’’ Id. EPA 

similarly stated in its 1992 Calcagni 

Memorandum that: ‘‘The requirements 

for reasonable further progress and other 

measures needed for attainment will not 

apply for redesignations because they 

only have meaning for areas not 

attaining the standard.’’ 

It is evident that even if we were to 

consider the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 

4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. EPA to 

mean that attainment-related 

requirements specific to subpart 4 

should be imposed retroactively 7 or 

prior to December 31, 2014 and, thus, 

were due prior to the State’s 

redesignation request, those 

requirements do not apply to an area 

that is attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, for the purpose of evaluating a 

pending request to redesignate the area 

to attainment. EPA has consistently 

enunciated this interpretation of 

applicable requirements under section 

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

was published more than twenty years 

ago. 

Courts have recognized the scope of 

EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ in the redesignation 

context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

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

Moreover, even outside the context of 

redesignations, EPA has viewed the 

obligations to submit attainment-related 

SIP planning requirements of subpart 4 

as inapplicable for areas that EPA 

determines are attaining the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard. EPA’s prior 

‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ rulemakings for the 

PM10 NAAQS, also governed by the 

requirements of subpart 4, explain 

EPA’s reasoning. They describe the 

effects of a determination of attainment 

on the attainment-related SIP planning 

requirements of subpart 4. See 

‘‘Determination of Attainment for Coso 

Junction Nonattainment Area,’’ (75 FR 

27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso 

Junction Proposed PM10 Redesignation, 

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

Proposed and Final Determinations of 

Attainment for San Joaquin 

Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 

40954–55, July 19, 2006 and 71 FR 

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

short, EPA in this context has also long 

concluded that to require states to meet 

superfluous SIP planning requirements 

is not necessary and not required by the 

CAA, so long as those areas continue to 

attain the relevant NAAQS. 

EPA has proposed to determine that 

the Martinsburg Area has attained and 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. See 79 FR 25540, May 5, 

2014. Under its longstanding 

interpretation, EPA is proposing to 

determine here that the Maryland 

portion of the Area meets the 

attainment-related plan requirements of 

subparts 1 and 4 for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, EPA is proposing 

to conclude that the requirements to 

submit an attainment demonstration 

under 189(a)(1)(B), a RACM 

determination under section 172(c)(1) 

and section 189(a)(1)(c), a RFP 

demonstration under 189(c)(1), and 

contingency measure requirements 

under section 172(c)(9) are satisfied for 

purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation request. 

c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

The D.C. Circuit Court in NRDC v. 

EPA remanded to EPA the two rules at 

issue in the case with instructions to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

49480 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for 

purposes of demonstrating attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable, a state is required to 

evaluate all economically and technologically 

feasible control measures for direct PM emissions 

and precursor emissions, and adopt those measures 

that are deemed reasonably available. 

9The Maryland portion of the Martinsburg Area 

has reduced VOC emissions through the 

implementation of various control programs 

including VOC Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) regulations and various onroad 

and nonroad motor vehicle control programs. 

EPA to re-promulgate them consistent 

with the requirements of subpart 4. EPA 

in this section addresses the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s opinion with respect to PM2.5

precursors. While past implementation 

of subpart 4 for PM10 has allowed for 

control of PM10 precursors such as NOX

from major stationary, mobile, and area 

sources in order to attain the standard 

as expeditiously as practicable, section 

189(e) of the CAA specifically provides 

that control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10 shall 

also apply to PM10 precursors from 

those sources, except where EPA 

determines that major stationary sources 

of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels which 

exceed the standard in the area.’’ 

EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit 

Court, contained rebuttable 

presumptions concerning certain PM2.5

precursors applicable to attainment 

plans and control measures related to 

those plans. Specifically, in 40 CFR 

51.1002, EPA provided, among other 

things, that a state was ‘‘not required to 

address VOC [and ammonia] as . . . 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursor[s] and 

to evaluate sources of VOC [and 

ammonia] emissions in the State for 

control measures.’’ EPA intended these 

to be rebuttable presumptions. EPA 

established these presumptions at the 

time because of uncertainties regarding 

the emission inventories for these 

pollutants and the effectiveness of 

specific control measures in various 

regions of the country in reducing PM2.5

concentrations. EPA also left open the 

possibility for such regulation of VOC 

and ammonia in specific areas where 

that was necessary. 

The D.C. Circuit Court in its January 

4, 2013 decision made reference to both 

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

stated that: ‘‘In light of our disposition, 

we need not address the petitioners’ 

challenge to the presumptions in [40 

CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic 

compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5

precursors, as subpart 4 expressly 

governs precursor presumptions.’’ 

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

the D.C. Circuit Court’s opinion, 

however, the D.C. Circuit Court 

observed: ‘‘Ammonia is a precursor to 

fine particulate matter, making it a 

precursor to both PM2.5 and PM10. For 

a PM10 nonattainment area governed by 

subpart 4, a precursor is presumptively 

regulated. See 42 U.S.C. § 7513a(e) 

[section 189(e)].’’ Id. at 21, n.7. 

For a number of reasons, EPA believes 

that its proposed redesignation of the 

Maryland portion of the Area for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS is consistent 

with the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision on 

this aspect of subpart 4. While the D.C. 

Circuit Court, citing section 189(e), 

stated that ‘‘for a PM10 area governed by 

subpart 4, a precursor is ‘presumptively 

regulated,’ ’’ the D.C. Circuit Court 

expressly declined to decide the specific 

challenge to EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule provisions 

regarding ammonia and VOC as 

precursors. The D.C. Circuit Court had 

no occasion to reach whether and how 

it was substantively necessary to 

regulate any specific precursor in a 

particular PM2.5 nonattainment area, 

and did not address what might be 

necessary for purposes of acting upon a 

redesignation request. 

However, even if EPA takes the view 

that the requirements of subpart 4 were 

deemed applicable at the time the State 

submitted the redesignation request, 

and disregards the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’s rebuttable 

presumptions regarding ammonia and 

VOC as PM2.5 precursors, the regulatory 

consequence would be to consider the 

need for regulation of all precursors 

from any sources in the area to 

demonstrate attainment and to apply the 

section 189(e) provisions to major 

stationary sources of precursors. In the 

case of the Maryland portion of the 

Area, EPA believes that doing so is 

consistent with proposing redesignation 

of the Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard. The Martinsburg Area has 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 

without any specific additional controls 

of VOC and ammonia emissions from 

any sources in the Area. 

Precursors in subpart 4 are 

specifically regulated under the 

provisions of section 189(e), which 

requires, with important exceptions, 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of PM10 precursors.8

Under subpart 1 and EPA’s prior 

implementation rule, all major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors 

were subject to regulation, with the 

exception of ammonia and VOC. Thus, 

EPA must address here whether 

additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC from major stationary sources are 

required under section 189(e) of subpart 

4 in order to redesignate the Maryland 

portion of the Area for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained 

subsequently, EPA does not believe that 

any additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC are required in the context of this 

redesignation. 

In the General Preamble, EPA 

discusses its approach to implementing 

section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538–13542. 

With regard to precursor regulation 

under section 189(e), the General 

Preamble explicitly stated that control 

of VOC under other CAA requirements 

may suffice to relieve a state from the 

need to adopt precursor controls under 

section 189(e). See 57 FR 13542. EPA in 

this rulemaking action proposes to 

determine that Maryland’s SIP has met 

the provisions of section 189(e) with 

respect to ammonia and VOC as 

precursors. This proposed 

determination is based on our findings 

that: (1) The Maryland portion of the 

Area contains no major stationary 

sources of ammonia; and (2) existing 

major stationary sources of VOC are 

adequately controlled under other 

provisions of the CAA regulating the 

ozone NAAQS.9 In the alternative, EPA 

proposes to determine that, under the 

express exception provisions of section 

189(e), and in the context of the 

redesignation of the Maryland portion of 

the Area, which is attaining the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard, at present 

ammonia and VOC precursors from 

major stationary sources do not 

contribute significantly to levels 

exceeding the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard in the Area. See 57 FR 13539– 

42. 

EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule provisions in 40 

CFR 51.1002 were not directed at 

evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the 

context of redesignation, but at SIP 

plans and control measures required to 

bring a nonattainment area into 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. By contrast, redesignation to 

attainment primarily requires the 

nonattainment area to have already 

attained due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions, and to 

demonstrate that controls in place can 

continue to maintain the standard. 

Thus, even if we regard the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s January 4, 2013 decision as 

calling for ‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of 

ammonia and VOC for PM2.5 under the 

attainment planning provisions of 

subpart 4, those provisions in and of 

themselves do not require additional 

controls of these precursors for an area 

that already qualifies for redesignation. 

Nor does EPA believe that requiring the 

State to address precursors differently 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 49481 

10See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans for California—San Joaquin 

Valley PM10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan 

for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual PM10

Standards,’’ (69 FR 30006, May 26, 2004) 

(approving a PM10 attainment plan that impose 

controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and did 

not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or ammonia 

emissions). 

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

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

than it has already, would result in a 

substantively different outcome. 

Although, as EPA has emphasized, its 

consideration here of precursor 

requirements under subpart 4 is in the 

context of a redesignation to attainment, 

EPA’s existing interpretation of subpart 

4 requirements with respect to 

precursors in attainment plans for PM10

contemplates that states may develop 

attainment plans that regulate only 

those precursors that are necessary for 

purposes of attainment in the area in 

question, i.e., states may determine that 

only certain precursors need be 

regulated for attainment and control 

purposes.10 Courts have upheld this 

approach to the requirements of subpart 

4 for PM10.11 EPA believes that 

application of this approach to PM2.5

precursors under subpart 4 is 

reasonable. Because the Martinsburg 

Area has already attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS with its current 

approach to regulation of PM2.5

precursors, EPA believes that it is 

reasonable to conclude in the context of 

this redesignation that there is no need 

to revisit the attainment control strategy 

with respect to the treatment of 

precursors. Even if the D.C. Circuit 

Court’s decision is construed to impose 

an obligation, in evaluating this 

redesignation request, to consider 

additional precursors under subpart 4, it 

would not affect EPA’s approval here of 

the State’s request for redesignation of 

the Maryland portion of the Area for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In the 

context of a redesignation, the State has 

shown that the Martinsburg Area has 

attained the standard. Moreover, the 

State has shown and EPA is proposing 

to determine that attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Maryland 

portion of the Area is due to permanent 

and enforceable emissions reductions 

on all precursors necessary to provide 

for continued attainment of the standard 

(see section V.A.3 of this rulemaking 

notice). It follows logically that no 

further control of additional precursors 

is necessary. Accordingly, EPA does not 

view the January 4, 2013 decision of the 

D.C. Circuit Court as precluding 

redesignation of the Maryland portion of 

the Area to attainment for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. In 

summary, even if, prior to the date of 

the redesignation request submittal, the 

State was required to address precursors 

for the Maryland portion of the Area 

under subpart 4 rather than under 

subpart 1, as interpreted in EPA’s 

remanded 1997 PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, EPA would still conclude that the 

Maryland portion of the Area had met 

all applicable requirements for purposes 

of redesignation in accordance with 

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

V. EPA’s Analysis of Maryland’s SIP 

Submittal 

EPA is proposing several rulemaking 

actions for the Maryland portion of the 

Martinsburg Area: (1) To redesignate the 

Area to attainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) to approve into the 

Maryland SIP, the associated 

maintenance plan for the 1997 annual 

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

2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs 

for transportation conformity purposes. 

EPA’s proposed approval of the 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

is based upon EPA’s determination that 

the Martinsburg Area continues to attain 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and that 

all other redesignation criteria have 

been met for the Maryland portion of 

the Area. The following is a description 

of how the December 12, 2013 Maryland 

submittal satisfies the requirements of 

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

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

A. Redesignation Request 

1. Attainment 

EPA has previously determined that 

the Martinsburg Area has attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. As noted 

previously, on November 20, 2009 (74 

FR 60199), EPA determined that the 

Martinsburg Area had attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard, based on 2007– 

2009 and 2008–2010 quality-assured, 

quality-controlled, and certified ambient 

air quality monitoring data. Pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.2004(c), this ‘‘clean data’’ 

determination for the Area suspended 

the requirements for the State to submit 

an attainment demonstration and 

associated RACM, a RFP plan, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to the attainment 

of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS until 

the Area is redesignated to attainment 

for the standard or EPA determines that 

the Area has again violated the 

standard, at which time such plans are 

required to be submitted. On January 10, 

2012 (77 FR 1411), EPA determined that 

the entire Martinsburg Area had 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

by its statutory attainment date of April 

5, 2010, based upon complete, qualityassured and certified ambient air quality 

monitoring data for the period of 2007– 

2009. 

Maryland’s redesignation request 

submittal included the historic 

monitoring data for the annual PM2.5

monitoring sites in the Martinsburg 

Area. The historic monitoring data 

shows that the Martinsburg Area has 

attained and continues to attain the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. MDE 

assures that all PM2.5 monitoring data 

for the Maryland portion of the Area has 

been quality-assured, quality-controlled, 

and certified by the State in accordance 

with 40 CFR 58.10. Furthermore, EPA 

has thoroughly reviewed the most 

recent ambient air quality monitoring 

data for PM2.5 in the Area, as submitted 

by the State and recorded in EPA’s Air 

Quality System (AQS). The PM2.5

quality-assured, quality-controlled, and 

state-certified 2009–2012 air quality 

data shows that the Martinsburg Area 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The Area’s PM2.5 annual 

design values for the 2009–2011, and 

2010–2012 monitoring periods as well 

as preliminary data for 2013 are 

provided in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—DESIGN VALUES IN THE MARTINSBURG AREA FOR THE 1997 ANNUAL PM2.5 NAAQS FOR 2008–2010, 2009– 

2011 AND 2010–2012 MONITORING PERIODS

[In μg/m3] 

Monitor ID Monitor location 

Annual design values 

2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 2011–2013 

54–003–0003 ...................... Martinsburg, WV ............................................ 12.9 11.8 11.6 10.7 

24–043–0009 ...................... Hagerstown, MD ............................................ 11.0 10.9 11.3 10.5 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

49482 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

The Martinsburg Area’s recent 

monitoring data supports EPA’s 

previous determinations that the Area 

has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. In addition, as discussed 

subsequently with respect to the 

maintenance plan for the Maryland 

portion of the Area, the State has 

committed to continue monitoring 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58. 

2. The Area Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements Under Section 110 and 

Part D of the CAA and Has a Fully 

Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) of 

the CAA 

In accordance with section 

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

revisions for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS for the Maryland portion of the 

Area must be fully approved under 

section 110(k) of the CAA and all the 

requirements applicable to the 

Maryland portion of the Area under 

section 110 of the CAA (general SIP 

requirements) and part D of Title I of the 

CAA (SIP requirements for 

nonattainment areas) must be met. 

a. Section 110 General SIP 

Requirements 

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

delineates the general requirements for 

a SIP, which include enforceable 

emissions limitations and other control 

measures, means, or techniques, 

provisions for the establishment and 

operation of appropriate devices 

necessary to collect data on ambient air 

quality, and programs to enforce the 

limitations. The general SIP elements 

and requirements set forth in section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA include, but are 

not limited to the following: (1) 

Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted 

by the state after reasonable public 

notice and hearing; (2) provisions for 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate procedures needed to 

monitor ambient air quality; (3) 

implementation of a source permit 

program; provisions for the 

implementation of Part C requirements 

(PSD); (4) provisions for the 

implementation of Part D requirements 

for NSR permit programs; (5) provisions 

for air pollution modeling; and (6) 

provisions for public and local agency 

participation in planning and emission 

control rule development. 

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

requires that SIPs contain certain 

measures to prevent sources in a state 

from significantly contributing to air 

quality problems in another state. To 

implement this provision, EPA has 

required certain states to establish 

programs to address the interstate 

transport of air pollutants in accordance 

with the NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57356, 

October 27, 1998), amendments to the 

NOX SIP Call (64 FR 26298, May 14, 

1999 and 65 FR 11222, March 2, 2000), 

and CAIR (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005). 

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

CAA requirements for a state are not 

linked with a particular nonattainment 

area’s designation and classification in 

that state. EPA believes that the 

requirements linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classifications are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. The transport SIP submittal 

requirements, where applicable, 

continue to apply to a state regardless of 

the designation of any one particular 

area in the state. Thus, EPA does not 

believe that these requirements are 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. 

In addition, EPA believes that the 

other section 110(a)(2) elements of the 

CAA which are not connected with 

nonattainment plan submissions and 

not linked with an area’s attainment 

status are not applicable requirements 

for purposes of redesignation. The 

Maryland portion of the Martinsburg 

Area will still be subject to these 

requirements after it is redesignated. 

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

the CAA and part D requirements which 

are linked with a particular area’s 

designation and classification are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in 

reviewing a redesignation request, and 

that section 110(a)(2) elements of the 

CAA not linked to the area’s 

nonattainment status are not applicable 

for purposes of redesignation. This 

approach is consistent with EPA’s 

existing policy on applicability of 

conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and 

oxygenated fuels requirement. See 

Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and 

final rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 

10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final 

rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); 

and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking (60 

FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also 

the discussion on this issue in the 

Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR 

37890, June 19, 2000) and in the 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania redesignation 

(66 FR 53099, October 19, 2001). 

EPA has reviewed the Maryland SIP 

and has concluded that it meets the 

general SIP requirements under section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA to the extent they 

are applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA has previously 

approved provisions of Maryland’s SIP 

addressing section 110(a)(2) 

requirements, including provisions 

addressing PM2.5. See 76 FR 72624, 

November 25, 2011. These requirements 

are, however, statewide requirements 

that are not linked to the PM2.5

nonattainment status of the Maryland 

portion of the Area. Therefore, EPA 

believes that these SIP elements are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

review of Maryland’s PM2.5

redesignation request. 

b. Subpart 1 Requirements 

Subpart 1 sets forth the basic 

nonattainment plan requirements 

applicable to PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

Under section 172 of the CAA, states 

with nonattainment areas must submit 

plans providing for timely attainment 

and meet a variety of other 

requirements. The General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I discusses the 

evaluation of these requirements in the 

context of EPA’s consideration of a 

redesignation request. The General 

Preamble sets forth EPA’s view of 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

evaluating redesignation requests when 

an area is attaining the standard. See 57 

FR 13498, April 16, 1992. 

As noted previously, EPA has 

determined that the Martinsburg Area 

has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.2004(c), 

the requirement for Maryland to submit, 

for the Maryland portion of the 

Martinsburg Area, an attainment 

demonstration and associated RACM, an 

RFP plan, contingency measures, and 

other planning SIPs related to the 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS are suspended until the Area is 

redesignated to attainment for the 

standard, or EPA determines that the 

Area again violated the standard, at 

which time such plans are required to 

be submitted. Since attainment has been 

reached for the Area for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS and continues to attain 

the standard, no additional measures are 

needed to provide for attainment. 

Therefore, the requirements of sections 

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

172(c)(9) of the CAA are no longer 

considered to be applicable for purposes 

of redesignation of the Maryland portion 

of the Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

The requirement under section 

172(c)(3) was not suspended by EPA’s 

clean data determination for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and is the only 

remaining requirement under section 

172 of the CAA to be considered for 

purposes of redesignation of the 

Maryland portion of the Area. Section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

submission and approval of a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventory of actual emissions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 49483 

On December 7, 2012 (77 FR 72966), 

EPA approved a 2002 emissions 

inventory for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS for the Maryland portion of the 

Area. The emissions inventory was 

submitted with Maryland’s attainment 

plan for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

on June 6, 2008, to meet the 

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

CAA. The 2002 comprehensive 

emissions inventories for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard submitted by the 

State with its attainment plan for the 

Maryland portion of the Area included 

emissions estimates that cover the 

general source categories of point 

sources, area sources, onroad mobile 

sources, and nonroad mobile sources for 

the Maryland portion of the Area. The 

pollutants that comprise the State’s 

2002 emissions inventories for the 

Maryland portion of the Area are PM2.5, 

NOX, SO2, VOC, and ammonia. An 

evaluation of the comprehensive 

emissions inventories for the Maryland 

portion of the Area is provided in the 

TSD prepared by EPA for the separate 

rulemaking action. See Docket ID No. 

EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0154. 

Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires 

the identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources in an area, 

and section 172(c)(5) of the CAA 

requires source permits for the 

construction and operation of new and 

modified major stationary sources 

anywhere in the nonattainment area. 

EPA has determined that, since the PSD 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation, areas being redesignated 

need not comply with the requirement 

that a nonattainment NSR program be 

approved prior to redesignation, 

provided that the area demonstrates 

maintenance of the NAAQS without 

part D NSR. A more detailed rationale 

for this view is described in a 

memorandum from Mary Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, dated October 14, 1994 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ 

Maryland’s PSD program for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS will become 

effective in the Maryland portion of the 

Martinsburg Area upon redesignation to 

attainment. See (77 FR 45949, August 2, 

2012) (approving revisions to 

Maryland’s PSD program). 

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

the SIP to meet the applicable 

provisions of section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA. As noted previously, EPA believes 

the Maryland SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA that are applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. Section 175A of the CAA 

requires a state seeking redesignation to 

attainment to submit a SIP revision to 

provide for the maintenance of the 

NAAQS in the area ‘‘for at least 10 years 

after the redesignation.’’ In conjunction 

with its request to redesignate the 

Maryland portion of the Martinsburg 

Area to attainment status, Maryland 

submitted the Washington County 

maintenance plan as a SIP revision to 

provide for maintenance of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Maryland 

portion of the Area for at least 10 years 

after redesignation, through 2025. 

Maryland is requesting that EPA 

approve this SIP revision as meeting the 

requirement of section 175A of the 

CAA. Once approved, the Washington 

County maintenance plan will ensure 

that the SIP for Maryland meets the 

requirements of the CAA regarding 

maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS for the Maryland portion of the 

Area. EPA’s analysis of the maintenance 

plan is provided in section V.B 

(Maintenance Plan) of this document. 

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 developed, funded or approved 

under Title 23 of the United States Code 

(U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act 

(transportation conformity) as well as to 

all other Federally supported or funded 

projects (general conformity). State 

transportation conformity SIP revisions 

must be consistent with Federal 

conformity regulations relating to 

consultation, enforcement and 

enforceability which EPA promulgated 

pursuant to its authority under the CAA. 

EPA interprets the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request under section 107(d) of the CAA 

because state conformity rules are still 

required after redesignation and Federal 

conformity rules apply where state rules 

have not been approved. See Wall v. 

EPA, 265 F.3d 426, (6th Cir. 2001) 

(upholding this interpretation). See also 

(60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995) 

(discussing Tampa, Florida). 

Thus, for purposes of redesignating to 

attainment the Maryland portion of the 

Martinsburg Area for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA determines that the 

Maryland portion of the Area has met 

all applicable SIP requirements under 

part D of Title I of the CAA. 

c. The Maryland Portion of the Area Has 

a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under 

Section 110(k) of the CAA 

EPA has fully approved all applicable 

requirements of the Maryland SIP for 

the Maryland portion of the Area for 

purposes of redesignaton to attainment 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 

accordance with section 110(k) of the 

CAA. 

3. Permanent and Enforceable 

Reductions in Emissions 

For redesignating a nonattainment 

area to attainment, section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii) 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 

implementation of the SIP and 

applicable Federal air pollution control 

regulations and other permanent and 

enforceable reductions. Maryland’s 

redesignation request indicates that a 

variety of federal vehicle control 

programs have created emission 

reductions that contributed to 

attainment in 2007. In making this 

demonstration, Maryland has calculated 

the change in emissions for the on-road 

sector between 2002, one of the years 

used to designate the Area as 

nonattainment, and 2007, one of the 

years the Area monitored attainment, as 

shown in Table 2. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

49484 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF 2002 NONATTAINMENT YEAR AND 2007 ATTAINMENT YEAR REDUCTIONS FOR ON ROAD

EMISSIONS IN THE MARYLAND PORTION OF THE AREA (tpy) 

2002 2007 Decrease 

SO2 .............................................................................................................................................. 286 218 68 

NOX .............................................................................................................................................. 9,163 6,022 3,141 

PM2.5 ............................................................................................................................................ 263 45 218 

VOC ............................................................................................................................................. 2,557 1,657 990 

NH3 .............................................................................................................................................. 111 92 19 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 12,380 8,034 4,436 

The reduction in emissions and the 

corresponding improvement in air 

quality from 2002 to 2007 in the 

Maryland portion of the Martinsburg 

Area can be attributed to a number of 

regulatory control measures that have 

been implemented in the Maryland 

portion of the Area and contributing 

areas in recent years. An evaluation of 

the State’s 2002 comprehensive 

emissions inventory for the Maryland 

portion of the Area is provided in the 

TSD prepared by EPA for the December 

7, 2012 rulemaking action approving the 

base year inventory. See Docket ID No. 

EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0154. An 

evaluation of the 2007 emissions 

inventory is provided in EPA’s 

emissions inventory TSD dated April 

30, 2014, which is available in the 

docket for this proposed rulemaking 

action. 

Reductions in PM2.5 precursor 

emissions have occurred statewide and 

in upwind states as a result of Federal 

emission control measures, with 

additional emission reductions expected 

to occur in the future. The Tier 2 

Emission Standards for Vehicles and 

Gasoline Sulfur Standards (Tier 2 

Standards) have resulted in lower NOX

and SO2 emissions from new cars and 

light duty trucks, including sport utility 

vehicles. The Federal rules were phased 

in between 2004 and 2009. EPA has 

estimated that, after phasing in the new 

requirements, new vehicles emit less 

NOX in the following percentages: 

Passenger cars (light duty vehicles)—77 

percent; light duty trucks, minivans, 

and sports utility vehicles—86 percent; 

and larger sports utility vehicles, vans, 

and heavier trucks—69–95 percent. EPA 

expects fleet wide average emissions to 

decline by similar percentages as new 

vehicles replace older vehicles. The Tier 

2 standards also reduced the sulfur 

content of gasoline to 30 parts per 

million (ppm) beginning in January 

2006, which reflects up to a 90 percent 

reduction in sulfur content. 

EPA issued the Heavy-Duty Diesel 

Engine Rule in July 2000. This rule 

includes standards limiting the sulfur 

content of diesel fuel, which went into 

effect in 2004. A second phase took 

effect in 2007 which reduced PM2.5

emissions from heavy-duty highway 

engines and further reduced the 

highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15 

ppm. The total program is estimated to 

achieve a 90 percent reduction in direct 

PM2.5 emissions and a 95 percent 

reduction in NOX emissions for these 

new engines using low sulfur diesel, 

compared to existing engines using 

higher sulfur diesel fuel. The reduction 

in fuel sulfur content also yielded an 

immediate reduction in particulate 

sulfate emissions from all diesel 

vehicles. 

In May 2004, EPA promulgated the 

Nonroad Diesel Rule for large nonroad 

diesel engines, such as those used in 

construction, agriculture, and mining, to 

be phased in between 2008 and 2014. 

The rule also reduces the sulfur content 

in nonroad diesel fuel by over 99 

percent. Prior to 2006, nonroad diesel 

fuel averaged approximately 3,400 ppm 

sulfur. This rule limited nonroad diesel 

sulfur content to 500 ppm by 2006, with 

a further reduction to 15 ppm by 2010. 

B. Maintenance Plan 

On December 12, 2013, MDE 

submitted a maintenance plan for 

Washington County for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS as required by section 

175A of the CAA. EPA’s analysis for 

proposing approval of the maintenance 

plan is provided in this section. 

1. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

Section 172(c)(3) requires states to 

submit a comprehensive, accurate, 

current inventory of actual emissions 

from all sources in the nonattainment 

area. For a maintenance plan, states are 

required to submit an inventory to 

identify the level of emissions in the 

area which is sufficient to attain the 

NAAQS, referred to as the attainment 

inventory (or the maintenance plan base 

year inventory), and which should be 

based on actual emissions. MDE 

submitted an attainment inventory for 

2007, one of the years in the period 

during which the Martinsburg Area 

monitored attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard. The attainment 

inventory is comprised of NOX, PM2.5, 

SO2, VOC, and NH3 emissions from 

point sources, nonpoint sources, onroad 

mobile sources, and nonroad mobile 

sources. 

For the 2007 emissions inventory for 

point, nonpoint, and nonroad source 

categories, MDE submitted the 2007 

Version 3 emissions inventory 

developed through the Mid-Atlantic 

Regional Air Management Association 

(MARAMA) regional planning process. 

Details related to the development of the 

2007 emissions inventory can be found 

in the January 23, 2012 MARAMA TSD 

entitled ‘‘Technical Support Document 

for the Development of the 2007 

Emissions Inventory for the Regional 

Air Quality Modeling in the Northeast/ 

Mid-Atlantic Region Version 3.3’’ which 

may be found in Appendix D of the 

State’s submittal, which is available in 

the docket for this proposed rulemaking 

action. 

The 2007 point source inventory 

includes emissions from EGUs and nonEGU sources as developed by MARAMA 

in consultation with MDE. The 

nonpoint source emissions inventory for 

2007 was developed using 2007 specific 

activity data along with EPA emission 

factors and the most recently available 

emission calculation methodologies. 

The 2007 nonroad mobile source 

emissions was generated using EPA’s 

National Mobile Inventory Model 

(NMIM) 2008, which used the 

NONROAD 2008a emissions model. 

Since marine, air and rail/locomotive 

(MAR) emissions are not part of the 

NONROAD model, they were calculated 

separately outside of the NONROAD 

model using the most recent 

methodologies and inputs. 

The 2007 onroad mobile source 

inventory was developed by using 

EPA’s highway mobile source emissions 

model MOVES2010a and the most 

recent planning assumptions. Local data 

inputs to MOVES2010a reflect the latest 

available planning assumptions using 

data obtained from MDE, the Maryland 

Motor Vehicle Administration (MMVA), 

the Maryland State Highway 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 49485 

Administration (MSHA), the 

Hagerstown/Eastern Panhandle 

Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(HEPMPO), and other local/national 

sources. The 2007 onroad emissions 

inventory, including a summary of the 

methodology and data assumptions 

used for the analysis may be found in 

Appendix F of the State’s submittal, 

available in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking action. 

EPA has reviewed the documentation 

provided by MDE and found the 

emissions inventory to be acceptable. 

For more information on the emissions 

inventories submitted by MDE and 

EPA’s analysis of the inventories, see 

Appendices A–G of the State’s submittal 

and EPA’s emissions inventory TSD 

dated April 30, 2014, all of which are 

available on line at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. 

EPA–OAR–R03–2014–0281. 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

Section 175A requires a state seeking 

redesignation to attainment to submit a 

SIP revision to provide for the 

maintenance of the NAAQS in the area 

‘‘for at least 10 years after the 

redesignation.’’ EPA has interpreted this 

as a showing of maintenance ‘‘for a 

period of ten years following 

redesignation.’’ Where the emissions 

inventory method of showing 

maintenance is used, its purpose is to 

show that emissions during the 

maintenance period will not increase 

over the attainment year inventory. See 

1992 Calcagni Memorandum, pages 9– 

10. 

For a demonstration of maintenance, 

emissions inventories are required to be 

projected to future dates to assess the 

influence of future growth and controls; 

however, the maintenance 

demonstration need not be based on 

modeling. See Wall v. EPA, supra; 

Sierra Club v. EPA, supra. See also 66 

FR 53099–53100; 68 FR 25430–32. To 

show that the Maryland portion of the 

Area will remain in attainment, MDE 

uses projection inventories derived by 

applying appropriate growth and 

control factors to the 2007 attainment 

year emissions inventory. MDE 

developed projection inventories for an 

interim year of 2017 and a maintenance 

plan end year of 2025 to show that 

future emissions of SO2, NOX, PM2.5, 

VOC, and NH3, will remain at or below 

the 2007 emissions levels throughout 

the Maryland portion of the Area 

through the year 2025. 

Projected emissions for EGU point 

sources were based on electricity 

generation projections delineated by 

region and fuel. Growth factors for EGU 

sources are based on the U.S. Energy 

Information Administration’s (EIA) 2011 

annual Energy Outlook (AEO2011). 

Projected emissions for non-EGU point 

sources were developed using AEO fuel 

consumption forecasts, State-level 

employment projections, and other 

State-specific emissions projection data. 

The projected onroad mobile source 

inventories were developed by using 

MOVES2010a. Local data inputs to 

MOVES2010a included the most recent 

planning assumptions using data from 

MDE, MMVA, MSHA, the HEPMPO, 

and other local/national sources. The 

State developed growth factors based on 

consultation between the Maryland 

Department of Transportation, 

HEPMPO, and MDE. 

Projected emissions for nonroad 

sources were developed using 

NMIM2008, which used the 

NONROAD2008a model, EPA’s most 

recently approved emissions estimation 

tool for nonroad sources. Airport ground 

support equipment emissions were 

estimated based on EPA’s aircraft 

inventory that uses the Federal Aviation 

Administration Emissions and 

Dispersion Modeling System. Because 

the NONROAD model does not estimate 

marine vessel, airport, and railroad 

sources, these emissions were estimated 

separately. 

A discussion of emission projections, 

projection methodology, control factors 

and growth factors for the 2017 and 

2025 inventories can be found in 

MARAMA’s ‘‘Technical Support 

Document for the Development of the 

2017/2020 Emission Inventory for 

Regional Air Quality Modeling in the 

Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Region, Version 

3.3’’ and in the MANE–VU TSD, which 

are both available in the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking. EPA has reviewed 

the documentation provided by MDE 

and found the methodologies 

acceptable. 

Based on the above discussion and 

available data, EPA has determined that 

the emissions inventories as provided 

by MDE are approvable. For more 

information on the State’s emissions 

inventory submittal and EPA’s analysis, 

see Appendices B and C of the State 

submittal and EPA’s TSD dated April 

30, 2014, which are available in the 

docket for this proposed rulemaking 

action. Table 3 shows a summary of the 

inventories for the 2007 attainment year, 

the 2017 interim year, and the 2025 

maintenance plan end year for the 

Maryland portion of the Area. 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF 2007 ATTAINMENT YEAR INVENTORY WITH 2017 AND 2025 PROJECTED EMISSIONS IN THE

MARYLAND PORTION OF THE MARTINSBURG AREA (tpy) 

2007 2017 2025 Change from 

2007–2017 

Change from 

2007–2025 

SO2 ....................................................................................... 7,183 5,962 5,967 1,221 1,216 

NOX ...................................................................................... 10,781 7,909 6,466 2,872 4,315 

PM2.5 .................................................................................... 1,432 1,191 1,155 241 280 

VOC ..................................................................................... 4,662 3,472 3,266 1,190 1,396 

NH3 ....................................................................................... 1,206 1,184 1,192 25 14 

Total .............................................................................. 25,264 19,717 18,046 5,547 7,218 

Table 3 shows that between 2007 and 

2017, the Maryland portion of the Area 

is projected to reduce SO2 emissions by 

17 percent, NOX emissions by 26.6 

percent, PM2.5 emissions by 16.8 

percent, NH3 by 2.1 percent, and VOC 

by 25.5 percent. Between 2007 and 

2025, the Maryland portion of the Area 

is projected to reduce SO2 emissions by 

16.9 percent, NOX emissions by 40.0 

percent, PM2.5 emissions by 19.6 

percent, NH3 by 1.2 percent and VOC by 

30 percent. The projected emissions 

inventories show that the Maryland 

portion of the Area will continue to 

maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

during the 10 year maintenance period. 

3. Monitoring Network 

There are two PM2.5 monitors in the 

Martinsburg Area. One is located in 

Maryland and is operated by the 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment, and the other one is 

located in West Virginia and is operated 

by the West Virginia Division of Air 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

49486 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Quality. The Washington County 

maintenance plan includes the State’s 

commitment to continue to operate and 

maintain its PM2.5 air quality monitoring 

network, consistent with EPA’s 

monitoring requirements, as necessary 

to demonstrate ongoing compliance 

with the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In 

its December 12, 2013 submittal, 

Maryland stated that it will consult with 

EPA prior to making any necessary 

changes to the network and will 

continue to quality assure the 

monitoring data in accordance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58. 

4. Verification of Continued Attainment 

To provide for tracking of the 

emission levels in the Maryland portion 

of the Area, MDE will periodically 

update the emissions inventory, 

consisting of annual and periodic 

evaluations. Annual emissions updates 

of stationary sources, the Highway 

Performance Monitoring System vehicle 

miles travelled data reported to the 

Federal Highway Administration, and 

other growth indicators, which will be 

compared to the growth assumptions to 

determine if the projected growth and 

observed growth are consistent. MDE 

will also submit comprehensive tracking 

inventories to EPA every three years as 

required by EPA’s Air Emissions 

Reporting Requirements (AERR) or as 

required by other federal regulations 

during the maintenance plan period. 

5. Contingency Measures 

The contingency plan provisions for 

maintenance plans are designed to 

promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. 

Section 175A of the CAA requires that 

a maintenance plan include such 

contingency measures as EPA deems 

necessary to ensure that a state will 

promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. 

The maintenance plan should identify 

the events that would ‘‘trigger’’ the 

adoption and implementation of a 

contingency measure(s), the 

contingency measure(s) that would be 

adopted and implemented, and the 

schedule indicating the time frame by 

which the state would adopt and 

implement the measure(s). 

Maryland’s maintenance plan outlines 

the procedures for the adoption and 

implementation of contingency 

measures to further reduce emissions 

should a violation occur. These 

procedures would be triggered in one of 

three situations: (1) When the annual 

actual emissions of SO2, NOX, or PM2.5

exceed the attainment year inventories 

that are identified in Table 3; (2) when 

there is an annual exceedance (annual 

average for one year at the federal 

reference method monitor located in 

Washington County) of 15.0 mg/m3; or, 

(3) When there is any violation (three 

year average of the annual average at the 

Federal reference method monitor 

located in Washington County) of 15.0 

mg/m3 or greater. 

If any future year emissions inventory 

indicates that the Maryland portion of 

the Area’s total emissions of SO2, NOX, 

or PM2.5 exceeds the attainment year 

levels, MDE would first perform an 

audit to determine if inventory 

refinements are needed, including a 

review of whether appropriate models, 

control strategies, monitoring strategies, 

planning assumptions, industrial 

thoughput, and production data were 

used in the attainment year and future 

year projections. If the audit does not 

reconcile the emissions exceedances, 

MDE will implement one or more of the 

contingency measures identified in the 

plan. If an annual exceedance of 15.0 

mg/m3 occurs, MDE commits to 

implementing one of the contingency 

measures identified for additional 

emission reductions, and if a violation 

occurs, MDE commits to implementing 

two or more of the contingency 

measures of programs identified to 

correct the violation. 

As explained in greater detail in 

Maryland’s maintenance plan, 

Maryland’s candidate contingency 

measures include the following: (1) 

PM2.5 RACM determinations; (2) NOX

RACM determination; (3) Non Road 

diesel emission reduction strategies; (4) 

low sulfur home heating oil 

requirements; (5) alternative fuel and 

diesel retrofit programs for fleet vehicle 

operations; and, (6) wet suppression 

upgrade requirements for concrete 

manufacturing. EPA finds that the 

maintenance plan for the Maryland 

portion of the Area includes appropriate 

contingency measures as necessary to 

ensure Maryland will promptly correct 

any violation of the NAAQS that occurs 

after redesignation. Finally, the 

maintenance plan establishes a schedule 

for implementation of contingency 

measures if needed, and MDE has 

committed to full implementation of 

contingency measures or programs 

within 24 months after notification by 

EPA that contingency measures must be 

implemented or 27 months after quality 

assured data indicates an exceedance or 

violation has occurred. For all of the 

reasons discussed above, EPA is 

proposing to approve the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 maintenance plan for the 

Maryland portion of the Area as meeting 

the requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA. 

C. Transportation Conformity 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

Federal actions in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas to ‘‘conform to’’ the 

goals of SIPs. This means that such 

actions will not cause or contribute to 

violations of a NAAQS, worsen the 

severity of an existing violation, or 

delay timely attainment of any NAAQS 

or any interim milestone. Actions 

involving Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval are subject to the 

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 

Part 93, subpart A). Under this rule, 

metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas coordinate with state 

air quality and transportation agencies, 

EPA, and the FHWA and FTA to 

demonstrate that their long range 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs (TIP) conform to 

applicable SIPs. This is typically 

determined by showing that estimated 

emissions from existing and planned 

highway and transit systems are less 

than or equal to the MVEBs contained 

in the SIP. 

On December 12, 2013, Maryland 

submitted a SIP revision that contains 

the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX

onroad mobile source budgets for the 

Maryland portion of the Martinsburg 

Area. Maryland did not provide 

emission budgets for SO2, VOC, and 

NH3 because it concluded, consistent 

with the presumptions regarding these 

precursors in the Transportation 

Conformity Rule at 40 CFR 

93.102(b)(2)(v), which predated and was 

not disturbed by the litigation on the 

1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, that 

emissions of these precursors from 

motor vehicles are not significant 

contributors to the Area’s PM2.5 air 

quality problem. EPA issued conformity 

regulations to implement the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS in July 2004 and 

May 2005 (69 FR 40004, July 1, 2004 

and 70 FR 24280, May 6, 2005). Those 

actions were not part of the final rule 

recently remanded to EPA by the D.C. 

Circuit Court in NRDC v. EPA, No. 08– 

1250 (January 4, 2013), in which the 

D.C. Circuit Court remanded to EPA the 

1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

because it concluded that EPA must 

implement that NAAQS pursuant to the 

PM-specific implementation provisions 

of subpart 4, rather than solely under 

the general provisions of subpart 1. That 

decision does not affect EPA’s proposed 

approval of the MVEBs for the Maryland 

portion of the Martinsburg Area. The 

MVEBs are presented in Table 4. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 49487 

TABLE 4—MVEBS FOR WASHINGTON

COUNTY, MARYLAND FOR THE 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS IN TPY

Year PM2.5 NOX

2017 .................. 149.63 4,057.00 

2025 .................. 93.35 2,774.63 

EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining adequacy of MVEBs are set 

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

Additionally, to approve the MVEBs, 

EPA must complete a thorough review 

of the SIP, in this case the PM2.5

maintenance plan, and conclude that 

with the projected level of motor vehicle 

and all other emissions, the SIP will 

achieve its overall purpose, in this case 

providing for maintenance of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA’s process for 

determining adequacy of a MVEB 

consists of three basic steps: (1) 

Providing public notification of a SIP 

submission; (2) providing the public the 

opportunity to comment on the MVEB 

during a public comment period; and, 

(3) EPA taking action on the MVEB. 

On February 12, 2014, EPA initiated 

an adequacy review of the MVEBs for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS that 

Maryland included in its redesignation 

request submittal. As such, a notice of 

the submission of these MVEBs were 

posted on the adequacy Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm). 

The public comment period closed on 

March 14, 2014. There were no public 

comments received. EPA has reviewed 

the MVEBs and found them consistent 

with the maintenance plan and found 

that the budgets meet the criteria for 

adequacy and approval. EPA published 

a Notice of Adequacy in the Federal 

Register on May 7, 2014 (79 FR 26246). 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve 

the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX

MVEBs for Washington County for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

Additional information pertaining to the 

review of the MVEBs can be found in 

the TSD dated April 4, 2014, available 

in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking action. 

VI. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

redesignation of the Maryland portion of 

the Martinsburg Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

monitoring data demonstrates that the 

Martinsburg Area has attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS and, for reasons 

discussed in this proposal, that it will 

continue to attain the standard. EPA is 

also proposing to approve the 

maintenance plan for the Maryland 

portion of the Area submitted on 

December 12, 2013 as a revision to the 

Maryland SIP because it meets the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA as described previously in this 

rulemaking notice. Final approval of 

this redesignation request would change 

the designation of the Maryland portion 

of the Martinsburg Area from 

nonattainment to attainment, as found 

at 40 CFR part 81, for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and would incorporate 

into the Maryland SIP the maintenance 

plan ensuring continued attainment of 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Area for 10 years after redesignation. 

Furthermore, EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and 

NOX MVEBs submitted by Maryland for 

Washington County for transportation 

conformity purposes. EPA is soliciting 

public comments on the issues 

discussed in this document. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule proposing to 

approve Maryland’s redesignation 

request, maintenance plan, and MVEBs 

for transportation conformity purposes 

for the Maryland portion of the Area for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000) because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Air pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: August 6, 2014. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19869 Filed 8–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

RIN 0648–BC34 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod Pot Gear 

Fishing Closure in the Pribilof Islands 

Habitat Conservation Zone in the 

Bering Sea and Rebuilding Pribilof 

Islands Blue King Crab 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS