Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Program Regulations and Reference to CAIR, and Amendments to Continuous Emission Monitor (CEM) Reference, 19648-19651 [2017-08664]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19648
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 81 / Friday, April 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Bulletin 32–56, Revision 4, dated August 16,
2016, as specified in British Aerospace
Jetstream Series 3100 and 3200 Service
Bulletin 32–JA960142, Revision No. 4,
October 21, 2016.
(i) For airplanes that have been inspected
following AD 97–10–05: Do the initial
inspection within 1,200 flight cycles (FC)
after the last inspection required by AD 97–
10–05 and repetitively thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 1,200 FC.
(ii) For airplanes that have not been
inspected following AD 97–10–05: Do the
initial inspection within 8,000 FC after
installation of the MLG or within the next
100 FC after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later, and repetitively
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,200 FC.
(2) If any cracks are found during any of
the inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) of
this AD, before further flight, replace the
MLG with an airworthy part following British
Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 and 3200
Service Bulletin 32–JA960142, Revision No.
4, October 21, 2016.
(3) The compliance times in paragraphs
(f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD are presented in
flight cycles (landings). If the total flight
cycles have not been kept, multiply the total
number of airplane hours time-in-service
(TIS) by 0.75 to calculate the cycles. For the
purposes of this AD:
(i) 100 hours TIS × .75 = 75 cycles; and
(ii) 1,000 hours TIS × .75 = 750 cycles.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(g) Other FAA AD Provisions
The following provisions also apply to this
AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
telephone: (816) 329–4059; fax: (816) 329–
4090; email: doug.rudolph@faa.gov. Before
using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your
appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the
FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement
in this AD to obtain corrective actions from
a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective
actions are considered FAA-approved if they
are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required
to assure the product is airworthy before it
is returned to service.
(h) Related Information
(1) Refer to MCAI European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2017–0053, dated
March 24, 2017. You may examine the MCAI
on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA–2017–0395.
(2) For the British Aerospace Jetstream
Series 3100 and 3200 service information
related to this AD, contact BAE Systems
(Operations) Ltd, Business Support TeamTechnical Publications, Prestwick
International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:56 Apr 27, 2017
Jkt 241001
Scotland, United Kingdom; phone: +44 1292
675207; fax: +44 1292 675704; email:
RApublications@baesystems.com; Internet:
https://www.regional-services.com/spares_
and_support/support/aircraft-technicalpublications/. For the Heroux Devtek service
information identified in this proposed AD,
contact Heroux Devtek Product Support, Unit
1, Pembroke Court, Chancellor Road, Manor
Park, Runcorn, Cheshire, WA7 1TG, England;
phone: +44 01928 530530; fax: +44 01928
579454; email: technical_support@
herouxdevtek.com; Internet: https://
www.herouxdevtek.com/aog-productsupport.
(3) You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information
on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call (816) 329–4148.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April
20, 2017.
Melvin Johnson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–08536 Filed 4–27–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
History
An NPRM was published in the
Federal Register of February 23, 2017
(82 FR 11415), Docket No. FAA–2016–
9594, to establish temporary restricted
areas, designated as R–2920A and R–
2920B, south of the Elgin Air Force Base
Range Complex, in the vicinity of Santa
Sosa Island, FL. The temporary
restricted areas were proposed to
contain hazardous activities to be used
for the testing of counter-unmanned
aircraft systems capabilities in support
of exercise Black Dart 2017, from May
11 to May 18, 2017. The comment
period closed on March 27, 2017. The
FAA received five comments on the
proposal. The proponent has informed
the FAA that hazardous testing
activities have been cancelled.
Therefore, the NPRM is being
withdrawn. As a result, the comments
received on the proposal are no longer
relevant.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted
areas.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The Withdrawal
Federal Aviation Administration
Accordingly, pursuant to the
authority delegated to me, the notice of
proposed rulemaking, as published in
the Federal Register on February 23,
2017 (82 FR 11415), FR Doc. 2017–
03537, is hereby withdrawn.
14 CFR Part 73
[Docket No. FAA–2016–9594; Airspace
Docket No. 16–ASO–20]
Proposed Establishment of Temporary
Restricted Areas R–2920A and R–
2920B; Santa Rosa Island, FL
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103,
40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR,
1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM); withdrawal.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 24,
2017.
Rodger A. Dean, Jr.,
Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
AGENCY:
[FR Doc. 2017–08597 Filed 4–27–17; 8:45 am]
This action withdraws the
NPRM published in the Federal
Register of February 23, 2017, proposing
to establish temporary restricted areas
R–2920A and R–2920B, Santa Rosa
Island, FL, for the period May 11 to May
18, 2017. The proponent has informed
the FAA that plans to conduct
hazardous activities have been
cancelled; therefore, a requirement no
longer exists to establish temporary
restricted areas.
DATES: The proposed rule published on
February 23, 2017 at 82 FR 11415 is
withdrawn as of 0901 UTC, April 28,
2017.
SUMMARY:
Paul
Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office
of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone (202) 267–8783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0514; FRL–9961–39–
Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Removal of Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) Program
Regulations and Reference to CAIR,
and Amendments to Continuous
Emission Monitor (CEM) Reference
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 81 / Friday, April 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules
July 7, 2016 state implementation plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of
Maryland. The revision includes revised
regulations which repealed Maryland’s
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
Program in its entirety, and which
removed references to CAIR from other
Maryland regulations that relate to
general air quality definitions and to the
control of emissions from pulp mills in
Maryland. Additionally, the revision
includes an amendment to a Maryland
regulation regarding the use of
continuous emission monitoring (CEM)
systems at Kraft pulp mill boilers and
combustion units in order to clarify that
CEM systems must meet requirements
beyond those only related to
certification. The July 7, 2016 SIP
submittal satisfies Maryland’s obligation
pursuant to an earlier rulemaking in
which EPA granted final conditional
approval of amendments regarding the
control of emissions from Kraft pulp
mills contingent upon Maryland
addressing the monitoring issue. Final
approval of the July 7, 2016 SIP revision
will convert the prior conditional
approval of the pulp mill regulations to
a full approval. EPA is proposing to
approve this revision to the Maryland
SIP in accordance with the requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before May 30, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2016–0514 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
pino.maria@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
confidential business information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:56 Apr 27, 2017
Jkt 241001
19649
implementation, and EPA was ordered
to continue administering CAIR on an
interim basis.4 In a subsequent decision
on the merits, the Court vacated CSAPR
based on a subset of petitioners’ claims.5
However, on April 29, 2014, the U.S.
Supreme Court reversed that decision
and remanded the case to the D.C.
Circuit for further proceedings.6
Throughout the initial round of D.C.
Circuit proceedings and the ensuing
I. Background
Supreme Court proceedings, the stay on
CSAPR remained in place, and EPA
To help reduce interstate transport of
ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) continued to implement CAIR.
Following the April 2014 Supreme
pollution in the eastern half of the
Court decision, EPA filed a motion
United States, EPA finalized CAIR in
asking the D.C. Circuit to lift the stay in
May 2005.1 CAIR addressed both the
order to allow CSAPR to replace CAIR
1997 ozone and PM2.5 national ambient
in an equitable and orderly manner
air quality standards (NAAQS) and
while further D.C. Circuit proceedings
required 28 states, including Maryland,
were held to resolve remaining claims
to limit emissions of nitrogen oxides
from petitioners. Additionally, EPA’s
(NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).2 For
CAIR, EPA developed three separate cap motion requested to toll, by three years,
all CSAPR compliance deadlines that
and trade programs that could be used
had not passed as of the approval date
to achieve the required reductions: The
of the stay. On October 23, 2014, the
CAIR NOX ozone season trading
D.C. Circuit granted EPA’s request, and
program, the CAIR annual NOX trading
on December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71663), in
program, and the CAIR SO2 trading
an interim final rule, EPA set the
program.
On December 23, 2008, CAIR was
updated effective date of CSAPR as
remanded to EPA by the United States
January 1, 2015 and tolled the
Court of Appeals for the District of
implementation of CSAPR Phase I to
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in North 2015 and CSAPR Phase 2 to 2017. In
Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. accordance with the interim final rule,
2008), modified on reh’g, 550 F.3d 1176. the sunset date for CAIR was December
The December 2008 D.C. Circuit ruling
31, 2014, and EPA began implementing
allowed CAIR to remain in effect until
CSAPR on January 1, 2015.7
a new interstate transport rule
II. Summary of SIP Revision
consistent with the Court’s opinion was
On July 7, 2016, EPA received from
developed. While EPA worked on
the State of Maryland a formal submittal
developing a new rule to address the
(#16–07) seeking a revision to its SIP. As
interstate transport of air pollution, the
a result of CSAPR replacing CAIR,
CAIR program continued as planned
Maryland, in its July 7, 2016 submittal,
with the NOX annual and ozone season
programs beginning in 2009 and the SO2 requested that EPA remove from the
Maryland SIP the CAIR program in its
annual program beginning in 2010.
entirety, and references to CAIR located
In response to the remand of CAIR,
in other sections of the Code of
EPA promulgated the Cross State Air
Maryland Regulations (COMAR).
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on July 6,
2011.3 CSAPR, which reduces emissions Maryland’s submittal seeks to remove
the CAIR program by removing, in its
from electric generating units (EGUs),
entirety, COMAR 26.11.28 from
addresses the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS Maryland’s SIP because the CAIR
program is now moot and has been
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
replaced entirely by CSAPR. The July 7,
The rule also contained provisions that
2016 SIP submittal also includes an
would sunset CAIR-related obligations
amended definition of ‘‘NOX Ozone
on a schedule coordinated with the
Season Allowance’’ in COMAR
implementation of CSAPR compliance
26.11.01.01B(24–1) which removed
requirements. CSAPR was to become
reference to CAIR, thereby directing
effective January 1, 2012; however, the
timing of CSAPR’s implementation was
4 Order of December 30, 2011, in EME Homer City
impacted by a number of court actions.
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11–1302.
On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit
5 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696
stayed CSAPR prior to its
F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted 133 U.S. 2857
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by
email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 7,
2016, EPA received from the State of
Maryland a formal submittal (#16–07)
seeking a revision to its SIP.
1 70
FR 25172 (May 12, 2005).
2 SO is a precursor to PM
2
2.5 formation, and NOX
is a precursor to both ozone and PM2.5 formation.
3 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(2013).
6 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S.
Ct. 1584, 1600–01 (2014).
7 At the present time, CSAPR is implemented in
Maryland via a federal implementation plan (FIP).
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
19650
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 81 / Friday, April 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
affected sources to the ‘‘NOX ozone
season emission trading program,’’
which is currently CSAPR. The SIP
revision also includes a revised version
of COMAR 26.11.14. In COMAR
26.11.14.07C(1), there was a specific
reference to COMAR 26.11.28,
Maryland’s CAIR program, which is
now moot and which Maryland
requested EPA remove from the SIP.
Maryland revised COMAR
26.11.14.07C(1) to remove reference to
COMAR 26.11.28, while permitting the
continued practice of allowing certain
sources to use NOX ozone season
allowances as an alternative compliance
method. Maryland has included revised
COMAR 26.11.01.01 and 26.11.14.07,
which includes 26.11.01.01B(24–1) and
26.11.14.07C(1), respectively, for
incorporation by reference into the
Maryland SIP.
Finally, the July 7, 2016 SIP
submission includes an amended
COMAR 26.11.14.07D(1) which removes
the word ‘‘certified’’ in order to clarify
that for Kraft pulp mill combustion
units and boilers to meet the monitoring
and reporting requirements, CEM
systems must meet all the requirements
of 40 CFR 75, subpart H, and not just the
certification requirements for CEMs.
III. Summary of EPA Analysis
In this action, EPA proposes to
approve the removal of COMAR
26.11.28, which incorporated the CAIR
program, from the Maryland SIP. EPA
also proposes to approve the removal of
references to CAIR from other Maryland
regulations located in the Maryland SIP
that relate to general air quality
definitions and to the control of
emissions from pulp mills in Maryland.
As mentioned previously in this
preamble, the D.C. Circuit remanded
CAIR to EPA in 2008; however, the
Court left CAIR in place while EPA
worked to develop a new interstate
transport rule. CSAPR was promulgated
to respond to the court’s concerns and
to replace CAIR. The implementation of
CSAPR was delayed for several years
beyond its originally expected
implementation timeframe of 2012 and
therefore the sunsetting of CAIR was
also deferred. CAIR was implemented
through the 2014 compliance periods
and was sunset and replaced by CSAPR
on January 1, 2015, thereby making
CAIR moot and any reference to CAIR
inconsequential. Additionally, as a
result of CSAPR replacing CAIR and the
removal of Maryland’s CAIR program
under COMAR 26.11.28, reference to
CAIR in other Maryland regulations is
inaccurate and misleading. Thus,
removing reference to CAIR or COMAR
26.11.28 from the other Maryland
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:56 Apr 27, 2017
Jkt 241001
regulations mentioned in this action
does not affect the sources impacted by
the federal cap and trade program.
Additionally, although EPA’s proposed
action here removes the CAIR program
from the Maryland SIP, this action is
overall SIP strengthening as it removes
a moot program no longer in operation.
EPA has already replaced CAIR with
CSAPR which operates through FIPs,
and which yields overall NOX and
ozone reductions that are at least equal
to or better than reductions from
CAIR.8 9
In addition, Maryland’s amendments
to COMAR 26.11.01.01 and COMAR
26.11.14 (to remove references to CAIR)
are in response to EPA’s conditional
approval of a previous Maryland SIP
submittal. Maryland SIP #14–04 was
submitted on October 8, 2014 for
inclusion in the Maryland SIP and
included amendments to COMAR
26.11.14—Control of Kraft Pulp Mills.10
In a letter dated September 18, 2015, the
Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) committed to
removing references to CAIR, which
sunset on December 31, 2014, through a
SIP revision. The amendments to
COMAR 26.11.01.01 and COMAR
26.11.14, provided by Maryland’s SIP
submittal #16–07, complete the actions
required by EPA’s conditional approval
of Maryland SIP submittal #14–04. 81
FR 59486 (August 30, 2016). Pursuant to
section 110(k) of the CAA and as stated
in the August 30, 2016 final conditional
approval of COMAR 26.11.14 for
Maryland’s October 8, 2014 SIP
submittal, once EPA determines that
MDE has satisfied the condition to
remove references to CAIR, EPA shall
remove the conditional nature of the
August 30, 2016 approval. At that time,
the October 8, 2014 SIP submission
#14–04 will receive full approval
status.11
Finally, regarding Maryland’s
amendments to COMAR
26.11.14.07D(1), the removal of the
word ‘‘certified’’ from this portion of the
8 76
FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
to section 110(l) of the CAA, the
Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan
if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress), or any other applicable
requirement of the Act.
10 The final rulemaking notice for EPA’s
conditional approval of SIP submission #14–04 was
published on August 30, 2016 (81 FR 59486) and
addressed NOX reductions for pulp mills in
Maryland.
11 Thus, once this proposed action to approve the
July 7, 2016 SIP submission #16–07 is finalized,
thereby finding Maryland has met the conditions
within our August 30, 2016 conditional approval
(81 FR 59486), the conditional approval of
Maryland’s October 8, 2014 SIP submission #14–04
will be converted to full approval.
9 According
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Maryland regulation is merely an
administrative action to make clear that
CEMs used by Kraft pulp mill
combustion units and boilers must meet
all of the requirements of 40 CFR part
75, subpart H, and not just the
certification requirements for CEMs.
Based upon its review, EPA finds
Maryland’s July 7, 2016 SIP submittal
approvable under section 110 of the
CAA as a SIP strengthening measure
which removes moot provisions and
makes minor administrative changes.
IV. Proposed Action
This action proposes to approve
Maryland’s July 7, 2016 SIP submittal
which seeks removal of Maryland’s
CAIR program, in its entirety, from the
SIP and also seeks the removal of
references to CAIR from other Maryland
regulations that relate to general air
quality definitions and to the control of
emissions from Kraft pulp mills in the
State. EPA is also proposing to approve
the amended version of COMAR
26.11.14.07D(1) for inclusion in the
Maryland SIP as the amended version
removes the word ‘‘certified’’ from
COMAR 26.11.14.07D(1) in order to
clarify the CEM system requirements for
monitoring and reporting emissions
from Kraft pulp mill boilers and
combustion units.
Additionally, EPA proposes to find
that Maryland’s July 7, 2016 SIP
submittal satisfies Maryland’s obligation
pursuant to EPA’s August 30, 2016 (81
FR 59486) rulemaking in which the
Agency granted final conditional
approval of amendments regarding the
control of NOX emissions at Kraft pulp
mills. For this reason, EPA also
proposes to remove the conditional
nature of the August 30, 2016
conditional approval and proposes to
grant full approval to the Maryland SIP
revision regarding the control Kraft pulp
mill emissions from various processes
and fuel-burning equipment, submitted
as #14–04 on October 15, 2014.
EPA is proposing to approve the
Maryland SIP revision which was
submitted on July 7, 2016. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered
before taking final action.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this proposed rule, EPA is
proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference portions of MDE regulations
COMAR 26.11.01 and COMAR 26.11.14
regarding air quality definitions and
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 81 / Friday, April 28, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Kraft pulp mill emission controls to
remove reference to CAIR which were
discussed in section II (Summary of SIP
Revision) of this preamble. EPA is also
proposing to incorporate by reference
the portion of COMAR 26.11.14 which
removed the word ‘‘certified’’ from
COMAR 26.11.14.07D(1). EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through
https://www.regulations.gov and/or at the
EPA Region III Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:56 Apr 27, 2017
Jkt 241001
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
19651
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule,
regarding the removal of the CAIR
program under COMAR 26.11.28 from
the Maryland SIP and amendments to
COMAR 26.11.01 and 26.11.14, does not
have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 21, 2017.
Cecil A. Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2017–08664 Filed 4–27–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\28APP1.SGM
28APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 81 (Friday, April 28, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19648-19651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08664]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0514; FRL-9961-39-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Program
Regulations and Reference to CAIR, and Amendments to Continuous
Emission Monitor (CEM) Reference
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a
[[Page 19649]]
July 7, 2016 state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Maryland. The revision includes revised regulations which
repealed Maryland's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Program in its
entirety, and which removed references to CAIR from other Maryland
regulations that relate to general air quality definitions and to the
control of emissions from pulp mills in Maryland. Additionally, the
revision includes an amendment to a Maryland regulation regarding the
use of continuous emission monitoring (CEM) systems at Kraft pulp mill
boilers and combustion units in order to clarify that CEM systems must
meet requirements beyond those only related to certification. The July
7, 2016 SIP submittal satisfies Maryland's obligation pursuant to an
earlier rulemaking in which EPA granted final conditional approval of
amendments regarding the control of emissions from Kraft pulp mills
contingent upon Maryland addressing the monitoring issue. Final
approval of the July 7, 2016 SIP revision will convert the prior
conditional approval of the pulp mill regulations to a full approval.
EPA is proposing to approve this revision to the Maryland SIP in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 30, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2016-0514 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
pino.maria@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814-5787, or by
email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 7, 2016, EPA received from the State
of Maryland a formal submittal (#16-07) seeking a revision to its SIP.
I. Background
To help reduce interstate transport of ozone and fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) pollution in the eastern half of the United
States, EPA finalized CAIR in May 2005.\1\ CAIR addressed both the 1997
ozone and PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) and required 28 states, including Maryland, to limit emissions
of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide
(SO2).\2\ For CAIR, EPA developed three separate cap and
trade programs that could be used to achieve the required reductions:
The CAIR NOX ozone season trading program, the CAIR annual
NOX trading program, and the CAIR SO2 trading
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005).
\2\ SO2 is a precursor to PM2.5 formation,
and NOX is a precursor to both ozone and PM2.5
formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 23, 2008, CAIR was remanded to EPA by the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on
reh'g, 550 F.3d 1176. The December 2008 D.C. Circuit ruling allowed
CAIR to remain in effect until a new interstate transport rule
consistent with the Court's opinion was developed. While EPA worked on
developing a new rule to address the interstate transport of air
pollution, the CAIR program continued as planned with the
NOX annual and ozone season programs beginning in 2009 and
the SO2 annual program beginning in 2010.
In response to the remand of CAIR, EPA promulgated the Cross State
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on July 6, 2011.\3\ CSAPR, which reduces
emissions from electric generating units (EGUs), addresses the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The rule also contained provisions that
would sunset CAIR-related obligations on a schedule coordinated with
the implementation of CSAPR compliance requirements. CSAPR was to
become effective January 1, 2012; however, the timing of CSAPR's
implementation was impacted by a number of court actions. On December
30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit stayed CSAPR prior to its implementation,
and EPA was ordered to continue administering CAIR on an interim
basis.\4\ In a subsequent decision on the merits, the Court vacated
CSAPR based on a subset of petitioners' claims.\5\ However, on April
29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded
the case to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings.\6\ Throughout the
initial round of D.C. Circuit proceedings and the ensuing Supreme Court
proceedings, the stay on CSAPR remained in place, and EPA continued to
implement CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
\4\ Order of December 30, 2011, in EME Homer City Generation,
L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302.
\5\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C.
Cir. 2012), cert. granted 133 U.S. 2857 (2013).
\6\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584,
1600-01 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the April 2014 Supreme Court decision, EPA filed a motion
asking the D.C. Circuit to lift the stay in order to allow CSAPR to
replace CAIR in an equitable and orderly manner while further D.C.
Circuit proceedings were held to resolve remaining claims from
petitioners. Additionally, EPA's motion requested to toll, by three
years, all CSAPR compliance deadlines that had not passed as of the
approval date of the stay. On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit
granted EPA's request, and on December 3, 2014 (79 FR 71663), in an
interim final rule, EPA set the updated effective date of CSAPR as
January 1, 2015 and tolled the implementation of CSAPR Phase I to 2015
and CSAPR Phase 2 to 2017. In accordance with the interim final rule,
the sunset date for CAIR was December 31, 2014, and EPA began
implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ At the present time, CSAPR is implemented in Maryland via a
federal implementation plan (FIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of SIP Revision
On July 7, 2016, EPA received from the State of Maryland a formal
submittal (#16-07) seeking a revision to its SIP. As a result of CSAPR
replacing CAIR, Maryland, in its July 7, 2016 submittal, requested that
EPA remove from the Maryland SIP the CAIR program in its entirety, and
references to CAIR located in other sections of the Code of Maryland
Regulations (COMAR). Maryland's submittal seeks to remove the CAIR
program by removing, in its entirety, COMAR 26.11.28 from Maryland's
SIP because the CAIR program is now moot and has been replaced entirely
by CSAPR. The July 7, 2016 SIP submittal also includes an amended
definition of ``NOX Ozone Season Allowance'' in COMAR
26.11.01.01B(24-1) which removed reference to CAIR, thereby directing
[[Page 19650]]
affected sources to the ``NOX ozone season emission trading
program,'' which is currently CSAPR. The SIP revision also includes a
revised version of COMAR 26.11.14. In COMAR 26.11.14.07C(1), there was
a specific reference to COMAR 26.11.28, Maryland's CAIR program, which
is now moot and which Maryland requested EPA remove from the SIP.
Maryland revised COMAR 26.11.14.07C(1) to remove reference to COMAR
26.11.28, while permitting the continued practice of allowing certain
sources to use NOX ozone season allowances as an alternative
compliance method. Maryland has included revised COMAR 26.11.01.01 and
26.11.14.07, which includes 26.11.01.01B(24-1) and 26.11.14.07C(1),
respectively, for incorporation by reference into the Maryland SIP.
Finally, the July 7, 2016 SIP submission includes an amended COMAR
26.11.14.07D(1) which removes the word ``certified'' in order to
clarify that for Kraft pulp mill combustion units and boilers to meet
the monitoring and reporting requirements, CEM systems must meet all
the requirements of 40 CFR 75, subpart H, and not just the
certification requirements for CEMs.
III. Summary of EPA Analysis
In this action, EPA proposes to approve the removal of COMAR
26.11.28, which incorporated the CAIR program, from the Maryland SIP.
EPA also proposes to approve the removal of references to CAIR from
other Maryland regulations located in the Maryland SIP that relate to
general air quality definitions and to the control of emissions from
pulp mills in Maryland. As mentioned previously in this preamble, the
D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA in 2008; however, the Court left CAIR
in place while EPA worked to develop a new interstate transport rule.
CSAPR was promulgated to respond to the court's concerns and to replace
CAIR. The implementation of CSAPR was delayed for several years beyond
its originally expected implementation timeframe of 2012 and therefore
the sunsetting of CAIR was also deferred. CAIR was implemented through
the 2014 compliance periods and was sunset and replaced by CSAPR on
January 1, 2015, thereby making CAIR moot and any reference to CAIR
inconsequential. Additionally, as a result of CSAPR replacing CAIR and
the removal of Maryland's CAIR program under COMAR 26.11.28, reference
to CAIR in other Maryland regulations is inaccurate and misleading.
Thus, removing reference to CAIR or COMAR 26.11.28 from the other
Maryland regulations mentioned in this action does not affect the
sources impacted by the federal cap and trade program. Additionally,
although EPA's proposed action here removes the CAIR program from the
Maryland SIP, this action is overall SIP strengthening as it removes a
moot program no longer in operation. EPA has already replaced CAIR with
CSAPR which operates through FIPs, and which yields overall
NOX and ozone reductions that are at least equal to or
better than reductions from CAIR.8 9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
\9\ According to section 110(l) of the CAA, the Administrator
shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress), or any other applicable requirement of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Maryland's amendments to COMAR 26.11.01.01 and COMAR
26.11.14 (to remove references to CAIR) are in response to EPA's
conditional approval of a previous Maryland SIP submittal. Maryland SIP
#14-04 was submitted on October 8, 2014 for inclusion in the Maryland
SIP and included amendments to COMAR 26.11.14--Control of Kraft Pulp
Mills.\10\ In a letter dated September 18, 2015, the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE) committed to removing references to
CAIR, which sunset on December 31, 2014, through a SIP revision. The
amendments to COMAR 26.11.01.01 and COMAR 26.11.14, provided by
Maryland's SIP submittal #16-07, complete the actions required by EPA's
conditional approval of Maryland SIP submittal #14-04. 81 FR 59486
(August 30, 2016). Pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA and as stated
in the August 30, 2016 final conditional approval of COMAR 26.11.14 for
Maryland's October 8, 2014 SIP submittal, once EPA determines that MDE
has satisfied the condition to remove references to CAIR, EPA shall
remove the conditional nature of the August 30, 2016 approval. At that
time, the October 8, 2014 SIP submission #14-04 will receive full
approval status.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The final rulemaking notice for EPA's conditional approval
of SIP submission #14-04 was published on August 30, 2016 (81 FR
59486) and addressed NOX reductions for pulp mills in
Maryland.
\11\ Thus, once this proposed action to approve the July 7, 2016
SIP submission #16-07 is finalized, thereby finding Maryland has met
the conditions within our August 30, 2016 conditional approval (81
FR 59486), the conditional approval of Maryland's October 8, 2014
SIP submission #14-04 will be converted to full approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, regarding Maryland's amendments to COMAR 26.11.14.07D(1),
the removal of the word ``certified'' from this portion of the Maryland
regulation is merely an administrative action to make clear that CEMs
used by Kraft pulp mill combustion units and boilers must meet all of
the requirements of 40 CFR part 75, subpart H, and not just the
certification requirements for CEMs.
Based upon its review, EPA finds Maryland's July 7, 2016 SIP
submittal approvable under section 110 of the CAA as a SIP
strengthening measure which removes moot provisions and makes minor
administrative changes.
IV. Proposed Action
This action proposes to approve Maryland's July 7, 2016 SIP
submittal which seeks removal of Maryland's CAIR program, in its
entirety, from the SIP and also seeks the removal of references to CAIR
from other Maryland regulations that relate to general air quality
definitions and to the control of emissions from Kraft pulp mills in
the State. EPA is also proposing to approve the amended version of
COMAR 26.11.14.07D(1) for inclusion in the Maryland SIP as the amended
version removes the word ``certified'' from COMAR 26.11.14.07D(1) in
order to clarify the CEM system requirements for monitoring and
reporting emissions from Kraft pulp mill boilers and combustion units.
Additionally, EPA proposes to find that Maryland's July 7, 2016 SIP
submittal satisfies Maryland's obligation pursuant to EPA's August 30,
2016 (81 FR 59486) rulemaking in which the Agency granted final
conditional approval of amendments regarding the control of
NOX emissions at Kraft pulp mills. For this reason, EPA also
proposes to remove the conditional nature of the August 30, 2016
conditional approval and proposes to grant full approval to the
Maryland SIP revision regarding the control Kraft pulp mill emissions
from various processes and fuel-burning equipment, submitted as #14-04
on October 15, 2014.
EPA is proposing to approve the Maryland SIP revision which was
submitted on July 7, 2016. EPA is soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered
before taking final action.
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference portions of MDE regulations COMAR 26.11.01 and
COMAR 26.11.14 regarding air quality definitions and
[[Page 19651]]
Kraft pulp mill emission controls to remove reference to CAIR which
were discussed in section II (Summary of SIP Revision) of this
preamble. EPA is also proposing to incorporate by reference the portion
of COMAR 26.11.14 which removed the word ``certified'' from COMAR
26.11.14.07D(1). EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and/or
at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
VI. 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 approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule, regarding the removal of the CAIR
program under COMAR 26.11.28 from the Maryland SIP and amendments to
COMAR 26.11.01 and 26.11.14, does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 21, 2017.
Cecil A. Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2017-08664 Filed 4-27-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
