Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Regional Haze Best Available Retrofit Technology Measure for Verso Luke Paper Mill, 24614-24617 [2017-10913]
Download as PDF
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
24614
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
(i) Is a ‘‘community unit,’’ as the
comparable term is defined or
interpreted in accordance with
§ 76.5(dd) of the rules and regulations of
the Federal Communications
Commission in effect as of November
23, 2014, 47 CFR 76.5(dd) (2014);
(ii) That is located in whole or in part
within the 35-mile specified zone of a
television broadcast station licensed to
a community in which a sports event is
taking place, provided that if there is no
television broadcast station licensed to
the community in which a sports event
is taking place, the applicable specified
zone shall be that of the television
broadcast station licensed to the
community with which the sports event
or team is identified, or, if the event or
local team is not identified with any
particular community, the nearest
community to which a television station
is licensed; and
(iii) Whose royalty fee is specified by
17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(B);
(3) A ‘‘television broadcast’’ of a
sports event must qualify as a ‘‘nonnetwork television program’’ within the
meaning of 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(3)(A);
(4) An ‘‘eligible professional sports
event’’ is a game involving teams that
are members of the National Football
League, Major League Baseball, the
National Hockey League, the National
Basketball Association, or the Women’s
National Basketball Association;
(5) An ‘‘eligible collegiate sports
event’’ is a game involving a football or
men’s basketball team that is a member
of Division I of the National Collegiate
Athletic Association on whose behalf
the FCC Sports Blackout Rule (47 CFR
76.111) was invoked during the period
from January 1, 2012 to November 23,
2014;
(6) The term ‘‘specified zone’’ shall be
defined as the comparable term is
defined or interpreted in accordance
with Section § 76.5(e) of the rules and
regulations of the Federal
Communications Commission in effect
as of November 23, 2014, 47 CFR 76.5(e)
(2014);
(7) The term ‘‘gross receipts’’ shall
have the same meaning as in 17 U.S.C.
111(d)(1)(B) and shall include all gross
receipts of the covered cable system
during the semiannual accounting
period except those from the covered
cable system’s subscribers who reside
in:
(i) The local service area of the
primary transmitter, as defined in 17
U.S.C. 111(f)(4);
(ii) Any community where the cable
system has fewer than 1000 subscribers;
(iii) Any community located wholly
outside the specified zone referenced in
paragraph (e)(1) above; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
(iv) Any community where the
primary transmitter was lawfully carried
prior to March 31, 1972;
(8) The term ‘‘FCC Sports Blackout
Rule’’ refers to § 76.111 of the rules and
regulations of the Federal
Communications Commission in effect
as of November 23, 2014, 47 CFR76.111
(2014);
(9) Subject to paragraph (e)(10) of this
section, the surcharge will apply to the
secondary transmission of the primary
transmission of a live television
broadcast of a sports event only where
the holder of the broadcast rights to the
sports event or its agent has given the
covered cable system advance written
notice regarding such secondary
transmission as required by the former
§ 76.111(b) of the rules and regulations
of the Federal Communications
Commission in effect as of November
23, 2014, 47 CFR 76.111(b) & (c) (2014);
and
(10) In the case of collegiate sports
events:
(i) The holder of the broadcast rights
or its agent also must attest that the
specific team on whose behalf the
surcharge notice is given meets the
eligibility condition specified in
paragraph (e)(5) of this section and
provide documentary evidence in
support thereof; and
(ii) The number of events involving a
specific team as to which a covered
cable system must pay the surcharge
will be no greater than the largest
number of events as to which the Sports
Blackout Rule (47 CFR 76.111) was
invoked in a particular geographic area
by such team during any one of the
accounting periods occurring between
January 1, 2012 and November 23, 2014.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: May 23, 2017.
Suzanne M. Barnett,
Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.
[FR Doc. 2017–10970 Filed 5–26–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–72–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0783; FRL–9961–03–
Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Regional Haze Best
Available Retrofit Technology Measure
for Verso Luke Paper Mill
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Maryland.
This revision pertains to a best available
retrofit technology (BART) alternative
measure for the Verso Luke Paper Mill
(the Mill) submitted by the State of
Maryland. Maryland requests new
emissions limits for sulfur dioxide (SO2)
and nitrogen oxides (NOX) for power
boiler 24 at the Mill and a SO2 cap on
tons emitted per year for power boiler
25, while also requesting removal of the
specific BART emission limits for SO2
and NOX from power boiler 25. The
alternative BART measure will provide
greater reasonable progress for SO2 and
NOX for regional haze by resulting in
additional emission reductions of 2,055
tons per year (tpy) of SO2 and an
additional 804 tpy of NOX than would
occur through the previously approved
BART measure for power boiler 25, a
BART subject source. This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before June 29, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2016–0783 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
rehn.brian@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:
Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by
email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Background
Regional haze is impairment of visual
range or colorization caused by air
pollution, principally by fine particulate
matter (PM2.5), produced by numerous
sources and activities, located across a
broad regional area. The sources
include, but are not limited to, major
and minor stationary sources, mobile
sources, and area sources including
non-anthropogenic sources. These
sources and activities may emit PM2.5
(e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust), and
their precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in
some cases, ammonia and volatile
organic compounds). Fine particulate
matter can also cause serious health
effects and mortality in humans, and
contributes to environmental effects
such as acid deposition and
eutrophication.
In the CAA Amendments of 1977,
Congress established a program to
protect and improve visibility in the
Nation’s national parks and wilderness
areas. See CAA section 169A. Congress
amended the visibility provisions in the
CAA in 1990 to focus attention on the
problem of regional haze. See CAA
section 169B. EPA promulgated regional
haze regulations (RHR) in 1999 to
implement sections 169A and 169B of
the CAA. These regulations require
states to develop and implement plans
to ensure reasonable progress towards
improving visibility in mandatory Class
I Federal areas.1 See 64 FR 35714 (July
1, 1999); see also 70 FR 39104 (July 6,
2005) and 71 FR 60612 (October 13,
2006).
The RHR requires each state’s regional
haze implementation plan to contain
emission limitations representing best
available retrofit technology (BART) and
schedules for compliance with BART
for each source subject to BART, unless
the state demonstrates that an emissions
trading program or other alternative
measure will achieve greater reasonable
progress toward natural visibility
conditions. The requirements for
alternative measures are established at
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
In addition to demonstrating greater
reasonable progress towards improving
visibility, among other things, the RHR
also requires that all necessary emission
1 While Maryland has no Class I areas within its
borders, there are several Class I areas nearby
including Dolly Sods Wilderness Area and Otter
Creek Wilderness Area in West Virginia; Brigantine
Wilderness in New Jersey; Great Smoky Mountains
National Park in North Carolina and Tennessee;
James River Face and Shenandoah National Park in
Virginia; Linville Gorge in North Carolina; and
Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
reductions from a BART alternative take
place during the period of the first longterm strategy for regional haze (i.e.,
2008–2018) and requires a
demonstration that the emission
reductions from the alternative measure
will be surplus to the reductions from
measures adopted to meet CAA
requirements as of the baseline date of
the SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). The
baseline date for regional haze SIPs is
2002. See Memorandum from Lydia
Wegman and Peter Tsirigotis, 2002 Base
Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning:
8-hr Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze
Programs, November 8, 2002. https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/
2002bye-gm.pdf. See 79 FR 56322,
56328–29 (September 19, 2014)
(proposing approval of alternative BART
for Arizona SIP).
Maryland’s regional haze SIP was
submitted by the Maryland Department
of the Environment (MDE) on February
13, 2012 and approved by EPA in June
2012. See 77 FR 39938 (June 13, 2012).
This regional haze SIP included, among
other measures, BART emission limits
for power boiler 25 at the Verso Luke
Paper Mill because power boiler 25 was
a BART subject source. The BART
emission limits which EPA had
approved in June 2012 for power boiler
25 were 0.44 pounds per million British
thermal units (lb/MMBtu) for SO2, a 30day rolling limit of 0.40 lb/MMBtu for
NOX, and 0.07 lb/MMBtu for particulate
matter (PM).2
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA’s
Analysis
On November 28, 2016, the State of
Maryland through the MDE submitted to
EPA a revision to the Maryland regional
haze SIP consisting of a BART
alternative measure for Verso Luke
Paper Mill. The SIP revision seeks to
revise the BART strategy for the Verso
Luke Paper Mill, including specifically
the emission limits for power boiler 25
for SO2 and NOX.
MDE states that Verso Luke Paper
Mill is eliminating the use of coal as a
source of fuel used in power boiler 24
and replacing it with natural gas. MDE’s
SIP revision submittal seeks alternative
BART emission limits for SO2 and NOX
for power boiler 24, and seeks to remove
the previously approved BART
requirements for SO2 and NOX from
power boiler 25 and replace them with
2 While EPA’s approval of Maryland’s regional
haze SIP in 2012 included a PM limit for power
boiler 25 of 0.07 lb/MMBtu, Maryland is not
seeking to revise that PM limit for BART on power
boiler 25 and thus the PM limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu
remains on power boiler 25. See 77 FR 39938. This
rulemaking action pertains to adjusting the BART
limits for SO2 and NOX for power boiler 25.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24615
new, alternative emission requirements.
Specifically, for power boiler 24 at the
Mill, Maryland’s SIP revision seeks to
establish (1) a new BART emission limit
of 0.28 lb/MMBtu, measured as an
hourly average for SO2; (2) a new BART
emission limit of 0.4 lb/MMBtu,
measured on a 30-day rolling average for
NOX; and (3) associated monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. For power boiler 25, this
SIP revision seeks to: (1) Remove the
SO2 BART emission limit approved by
EPA in June 2012 and seeks to establish
an annual SO2 cap of 9,876 tons
measured on a 12-month rolling
average; (2) remove the NOX BART
emission limit but retain existing
requirements under COMAR
26.11.14.07 applicable to the power
boiler; and (3) impose associated
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements. The BART
requirements for PM approved by EPA
in June 2012 on power boiler 25 would
remain unchanged on power boiler 25.
MDE’s analysis demonstrates that the
alternative SO2 BART measure (i.e. new
SO2 emission limit on power boiler 24;
removal of approved SO2 BART limit
and new annual SO2 cap on power
boiler 25) would provide an additional
2,055 tpy in SO2 emissions reductions
(or 20% more emission reductions) than
the tons per year to be reduced by the
currently approved BART requirements
on power boiler 25. MDE’s analysis also
shows that the alternative NOX BART
measure on power boiler 24 (with
removed BART limit on power boiler
25) would provide an additional 804 tpy
in NOX emission reductions than the
currently approved BART requirements
on power boiler 25. Finally, MDE’s
analysis shows that the alternative NOX
BART measure on power boiler 24
would provide a 227 tons per ozone
season NOX benefit than would the
currently approved BART requirements
on power boiler 25.
Thus, with the additional SO2 and
NOX emission reductions per year, EPA
finds that the alternative SO2 and NOX
BART emission limits on power boiler
24 (with the SO2 tpy cap on power
boiler 25) will provide for greater
reasonable progress toward achieving
natural visibility conditions than would
be achieved through the currently
approved BART emission limits on
power boiler 25. EPA also finds the
emission reductions from the new limits
on power boiler 24 (and SO2 tpy cap on
power boiler 25) have been
implemented before the end of the first
regional haze planning period (i.e.,
2018). In addition, the emission
reductions from the proposed BART
emission limits for power boiler 24 for
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
24616
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SO2 and NOX are surplus to reductions
resulting from CAA requirements as of
the baseline date of the SIP or 2002.
More information on Maryland’s SIP
submittal and on EPA’s analysis of
emission reductions from the alternative
BART measure (including discussion of
the reductions as implemented and
surplus) is provided in the Technical
Support Document (TSD) which is
available online at www.regulations.gov
for this rulemaking. Therefore, EPA
finds Maryland’s SIP revision for the
alternative BART emission limits for
SO2 and NOX for power boiler 24 (and
SO2 cap on power boiler 25) meet the
requirements for an alternative BART
measure in accordance with CAA
section 169A and as established at 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2) in the RHR.
In addition, EPA finds that this SIP
revision, which seeks to remove BART
SO2 and NOX emission limits for power
boiler 25 from the approved Maryland
regional haze SIP, meets the
requirements of CAA section 110(l) and
will not interfere with attainment and
maintenance of any NAAQS, reasonable
further progress or any other applicable
CAA requirement. EPA finds that
Maryland has demonstrated that
additional SO2 and NOX emission
reductions will be achieved each year
with the alternative BART emission
limits on power boiler 24 and SO2 tpy
cap on power boiler 25, and as such, no
interference with reasonable further
progress or any NAAQS is expected. As
discussed previously, the alternative
BART emission limits on power boiler
24 meet other CAA requirements in
section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
More information on Maryland’s SIP
submittal and demonstration of greater
reasonable progress from the alternative
BART measure is provided in the TSD
under Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–
2016–0783 which is available online at
www.regulations.gov for this
rulemaking. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in
this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.
III. Proposed Action
EPA has reviewed Maryland’s SIP
revision seeking an alternative BART
measure and emission limits for power
boiler 24 (and SO2 tpy cap on power
boiler 25) compared to EPA’s previously
federally enforceable BART limits for
SO2 and NOX on power boiler 25. EPA
finds that the alternative BART measure
for Verso Luke Paper Mill with SO2 and
NOX limits as alternative BART on
power boiler 24 will result in greater
emission reductions in SO2 and NOX
from the facility and provide greater
reasonable progress and greater
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
visibility improvement than the
currently approved BART measure
which applies solely to power boiler 25.
Specifically, the conversion of power
boiler 24 from a coal-burning boiler to
a natural gas power boiler with new
emission limits contained within a
federally enforceable permit is expected
to result in fewer SO2 and NOX
emissions from the Mill. MDE’s analysis
shows that in comparison to the
currently approved BART requirements
on power boiler 25, the alternative
BART measure on power boiler 24 of
0.28 lb/MMBtu, measured as an hourly
average for SO2 and 0.4 lb/MMBtu,
measured on a 30-day rolling average for
NOX with the 9,876 SO2 cap on power
boiler 25, would provide (1) an
additional 2,055 tpy in SO2 emissions
reductions; (2) an additional 804 tpy in
NOX emission reductions; and (3) a 227
tons per ozone season NOX benefit. In
addition, EPA finds that the alternative
BART emission limits will result in
reductions surplus to CAA requirements
as of 2002 and will be implemented
prior to the end of 2018. EPA proposes
to approve the November 28, 2016 SIP
submittal as it meets the requirements
in CAA section 169A and in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2). EPA also proposes to
incorporate by reference the permit
requirements for power boilers 24 and
25 issued August 17, 2016 for the Mill,
which include alternative emission
requirements, as well as monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
EPA also finds that this SIP revision
meets the requirements of CAA section
110(l) and will not interfere with
attainment and maintenance of any
NAAQS, reasonable further progress or
any other applicable CAA requirement.
Therefore, EPA proposes to approve
Maryland’s November 28, 2016 SIP
revision submittal as it meets CAA
requirements.
IV. 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 the permit requirements for
power boilers 24 and 25 issued August
17, 2016 for Verso Luke Paper Mill,
which include alternative emission
requirements, as well as monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for power boilers 24 and
25 as discussed in section II of this
notice of proposed rulemaking and the
TSD. EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these materials generally
available through https://
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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).
V. 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,
pertaining to alternative BART emission
limits for Verso Luke Paper Mill, does
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 6, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2017–10913 Filed 5–26–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0267; FRL–9962–74–
Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; District
of Columbia; Regional Haze Five-Year
Progress Report State Implementation
Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of
a revision to the District of Columbia
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the District of Columbia
(the District) through the District of
Columbia Department of Energy and
Environment (DOEE). The District’s SIP
revision addresses requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s rules
that require states to submit periodic
reports describing progress towards
reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
established for regional haze and a
determination of the adequacy of the
state’s existing SIP addressing regional
haze (regional haze SIP). EPA is
proposing approval of the District’s SIP
revision because EPA has determined
that it satisfactorily addresses the
progress report and adequacy
determination requirements for the first
implementation period for regional
haze. This action is being taken under
the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before June 29, 2017.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 May 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2016–0267 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
rehn.brian@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
confidential business information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara
Calcinore, (215) 814–2043, or by email
at calcinore.sara@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March
2, 2016, the District submitted, as a SIP
revision (progress report SIP), a report
on progress made for visibility
improvement in the first
implementation period. This progress
report SIP included a determination that
the existing regional haze SIP requires
no substantive revision to achieve the
established regional haze visibility
improvement and emissions reduction
goals.
ADDRESSES:
I. Background
States are required to submit, in the
form of a SIP revision, a progress report
that evaluates progress towards the
RPGs for each mandatory Class I federal
area within the state and in each
mandatory Class I federal area outside
the state which may be affected by
emissions from within the state. See 40
CFR 51.308(g). States are also required
to submit, at the same time as the
progress report, a determination of the
adequacy of the state’s existing regional
haze SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The
progress report SIP is due five years
after submittal of the initial regional
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24617
haze SIP. On October 27, 2011, DOEE
submitted its first regional haze SIP in
accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308. On February 2, 2012 (77 FR
5191), EPA approved the District’s first
regional haze SIP. The District
submitted its first progress report SIP on
March 2, 2016 prior to the October 27,
2016 due date.
II. Requirements for the Regional Haze
Progress Report SIPs and Adequacy
Determinations
Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must
submit a regional haze progress report
as a SIP revision that addresses, at a
minimum, the seven elements found in
40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in
further detail in section III of this
rulemaking action, to meet the progress
report requirement, 40 CFR 51.308(g)
requires: (1) A description of the status
of measures in the approved regional
haze SIP; (2) a summary of emissions
reductions achieved; (3) an assessment
of visibility conditions for each Class I
area in the state; (4) an analysis of
changes in emissions from sources and
activities within the state; (5) an
assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or
outside the state that have limited or
impeded progress in Class I areas
impacted by the state’s sources; (6) an
assessment of the sufficiency of the
approved regional haze SIP; and (7) a
review of the state’s visibility
monitoring strategy.
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are
required to submit, at the same time as
the progress report SIP, a determination
of the adequacy of their existing
regional haze SIP and to take one of four
possible actions based on information in
the progress report. As described in
further detail in section III of this
rulemaking action, to meet the adequacy
determination requirement, 40 CFR
51.308(h) requires states to either: (1)
Submit a negative declaration to EPA
that no further substantive revision to
the state’s existing regional haze SIP is
needed; (2) provide notification to EPA
(and other state(s) that participated in
the regional planning process) if the
state determines that its existing
regional haze SIP is or may be
inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress at one or more Class I areas due
to emissions from sources in other
state(s) that participated in the regional
planning process, and collaborate with
these other state(s) to develop additional
strategies to address deficiencies; (3)
provide notification with supporting
information to EPA if the state
determines that its existing regional
haze SIP is or may be inadequate to
ensure reasonable progress at one or
E:\FR\FM\30MYP1.SGM
30MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 30, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24614-24617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10913]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0783; FRL-9961-03-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Regional Haze Best Available Retrofit Technology Measure for
Verso Luke Paper Mill
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Maryland. This revision pertains to a best available retrofit
technology (BART) alternative measure for the Verso Luke Paper Mill
(the Mill) submitted by the State of Maryland. Maryland requests new
emissions limits for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) for power boiler 24 at the Mill and a
SO2 cap on tons emitted per year for power boiler 25, while
also requesting removal of the specific BART emission limits for
SO2 and NOX from power boiler 25. The alternative
BART measure will provide greater reasonable progress for
SO2 and NOX for regional haze by resulting in
additional emission reductions of 2,055 tons per year (tpy) of
SO2 and an additional 804 tpy of NOX than would
occur through the previously approved BART measure for power boiler 25,
a BART subject source. This action is being taken under the Clean Air
Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 29, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2016-0783 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
rehn.brian@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: Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by
email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov.
[[Page 24615]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Regional haze is impairment of visual range or colorization caused
by air pollution, principally by fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), produced by numerous sources and activities,
located across a broad regional area. The sources include, but are not
limited to, major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and
area sources including non-anthropogenic sources. These sources and
activities may emit PM2.5 (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic
carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g.,
SO2, NOX, and in some cases, ammonia and volatile
organic compounds). Fine particulate matter can also cause serious
health effects and mortality in humans, and contributes to
environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
In the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress established a program to
protect and improve visibility in the Nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. See CAA section 169A. Congress amended the visibility
provisions in the CAA in 1990 to focus attention on the problem of
regional haze. See CAA section 169B. EPA promulgated regional haze
regulations (RHR) in 1999 to implement sections 169A and 169B of the
CAA. These regulations require states to develop and implement plans to
ensure reasonable progress towards improving visibility in mandatory
Class I Federal areas.\1\ See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); see also 70
FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While Maryland has no Class I areas within its borders,
there are several Class I areas nearby including Dolly Sods
Wilderness Area and Otter Creek Wilderness Area in West Virginia;
Brigantine Wilderness in New Jersey; Great Smoky Mountains National
Park in North Carolina and Tennessee; James River Face and
Shenandoah National Park in Virginia; Linville Gorge in North
Carolina; and Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RHR requires each state's regional haze implementation plan to
contain emission limitations representing best available retrofit
technology (BART) and schedules for compliance with BART for each
source subject to BART, unless the state demonstrates that an emissions
trading program or other alternative measure will achieve greater
reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions. The
requirements for alternative measures are established at 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2).
In addition to demonstrating greater reasonable progress towards
improving visibility, among other things, the RHR also requires that
all necessary emission reductions from a BART alternative take place
during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze
(i.e., 2008-2018) and requires a demonstration that the emission
reductions from the alternative measure will be surplus to the
reductions from measures adopted to meet CAA requirements as of the
baseline date of the SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). The baseline date for
regional haze SIPs is 2002. See Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Peter
Tsirigotis, 2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze Programs, November 8, 2002. https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/2002bye-gm.pdf. See 79 FR 56322,
56328-29 (September 19, 2014) (proposing approval of alternative BART
for Arizona SIP).
Maryland's regional haze SIP was submitted by the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE) on February 13, 2012 and approved
by EPA in June 2012. See 77 FR 39938 (June 13, 2012). This regional
haze SIP included, among other measures, BART emission limits for power
boiler 25 at the Verso Luke Paper Mill because power boiler 25 was a
BART subject source. The BART emission limits which EPA had approved in
June 2012 for power boiler 25 were 0.44 pounds per million British
thermal units (lb/MMBtu) for SO2, a 30-day rolling limit of
0.40 lb/MMBtu for NOX, and 0.07 lb/MMBtu for particulate
matter (PM).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ While EPA's approval of Maryland's regional haze SIP in 2012
included a PM limit for power boiler 25 of 0.07 lb/MMBtu, Maryland
is not seeking to revise that PM limit for BART on power boiler 25
and thus the PM limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu remains on power boiler 25.
See 77 FR 39938. This rulemaking action pertains to adjusting the
BART limits for SO2 and NOX for power boiler
25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA's Analysis
On November 28, 2016, the State of Maryland through the MDE
submitted to EPA a revision to the Maryland regional haze SIP
consisting of a BART alternative measure for Verso Luke Paper Mill. The
SIP revision seeks to revise the BART strategy for the Verso Luke Paper
Mill, including specifically the emission limits for power boiler 25
for SO2 and NOX.
MDE states that Verso Luke Paper Mill is eliminating the use of
coal as a source of fuel used in power boiler 24 and replacing it with
natural gas. MDE's SIP revision submittal seeks alternative BART
emission limits for SO2 and NOX for power boiler
24, and seeks to remove the previously approved BART requirements for
SO2 and NOX from power boiler 25 and replace them
with new, alternative emission requirements. Specifically, for power
boiler 24 at the Mill, Maryland's SIP revision seeks to establish (1) a
new BART emission limit of 0.28 lb/MMBtu, measured as an hourly average
for SO2; (2) a new BART emission limit of 0.4 lb/MMBtu,
measured on a 30-day rolling average for NOX; and (3)
associated monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. For
power boiler 25, this SIP revision seeks to: (1) Remove the
SO2 BART emission limit approved by EPA in June 2012 and
seeks to establish an annual SO2 cap of 9,876 tons measured
on a 12-month rolling average; (2) remove the NOX BART
emission limit but retain existing requirements under COMAR 26.11.14.07
applicable to the power boiler; and (3) impose associated monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The BART requirements for PM
approved by EPA in June 2012 on power boiler 25 would remain unchanged
on power boiler 25.
MDE's analysis demonstrates that the alternative SO2
BART measure (i.e. new SO2 emission limit on power boiler
24; removal of approved SO2 BART limit and new annual
SO2 cap on power boiler 25) would provide an additional
2,055 tpy in SO2 emissions reductions (or 20% more emission
reductions) than the tons per year to be reduced by the currently
approved BART requirements on power boiler 25. MDE's analysis also
shows that the alternative NOX BART measure on power boiler
24 (with removed BART limit on power boiler 25) would provide an
additional 804 tpy in NOX emission reductions than the
currently approved BART requirements on power boiler 25. Finally, MDE's
analysis shows that the alternative NOX BART measure on
power boiler 24 would provide a 227 tons per ozone season
NOX benefit than would the currently approved BART
requirements on power boiler 25.
Thus, with the additional SO2 and NOX
emission reductions per year, EPA finds that the alternative
SO2 and NOX BART emission limits on power boiler
24 (with the SO2 tpy cap on power boiler 25) will provide
for greater reasonable progress toward achieving natural visibility
conditions than would be achieved through the currently approved BART
emission limits on power boiler 25. EPA also finds the emission
reductions from the new limits on power boiler 24 (and SO2
tpy cap on power boiler 25) have been implemented before the end of the
first regional haze planning period (i.e., 2018). In addition, the
emission reductions from the proposed BART emission limits for power
boiler 24 for
[[Page 24616]]
SO2 and NOX are surplus to reductions resulting
from CAA requirements as of the baseline date of the SIP or 2002. More
information on Maryland's SIP submittal and on EPA's analysis of
emission reductions from the alternative BART measure (including
discussion of the reductions as implemented and surplus) is provided in
the Technical Support Document (TSD) which is available online at
www.regulations.gov for this rulemaking. Therefore, EPA finds
Maryland's SIP revision for the alternative BART emission limits for
SO2 and NOX for power boiler 24 (and
SO2 cap on power boiler 25) meet the requirements for an
alternative BART measure in accordance with CAA section 169A and as
established at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) in the RHR.
In addition, EPA finds that this SIP revision, which seeks to
remove BART SO2 and NOX emission limits for power
boiler 25 from the approved Maryland regional haze SIP, meets the
requirements of CAA section 110(l) and will not interfere with
attainment and maintenance of any NAAQS, reasonable further progress or
any other applicable CAA requirement. EPA finds that Maryland has
demonstrated that additional SO2 and NOX emission
reductions will be achieved each year with the alternative BART
emission limits on power boiler 24 and SO2 tpy cap on power
boiler 25, and as such, no interference with reasonable further
progress or any NAAQS is expected. As discussed previously, the
alternative BART emission limits on power boiler 24 meet other CAA
requirements in section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). More information
on Maryland's SIP submittal and demonstration of greater reasonable
progress from the alternative BART measure is provided in the TSD under
Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0783 which is available online at
www.regulations.gov for this rulemaking. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.
III. Proposed Action
EPA has reviewed Maryland's SIP revision seeking an alternative
BART measure and emission limits for power boiler 24 (and
SO2 tpy cap on power boiler 25) compared to EPA's previously
federally enforceable BART limits for SO2 and NOX
on power boiler 25. EPA finds that the alternative BART measure for
Verso Luke Paper Mill with SO2 and NOX limits as
alternative BART on power boiler 24 will result in greater emission
reductions in SO2 and NOX from the facility and
provide greater reasonable progress and greater visibility improvement
than the currently approved BART measure which applies solely to power
boiler 25. Specifically, the conversion of power boiler 24 from a coal-
burning boiler to a natural gas power boiler with new emission limits
contained within a federally enforceable permit is expected to result
in fewer SO2 and NOX emissions from the Mill.
MDE's analysis shows that in comparison to the currently approved BART
requirements on power boiler 25, the alternative BART measure on power
boiler 24 of 0.28 lb/MMBtu, measured as an hourly average for
SO2 and 0.4 lb/MMBtu, measured on a 30-day rolling average
for NOX with the 9,876 SO2 cap on power boiler
25, would provide (1) an additional 2,055 tpy in SO2
emissions reductions; (2) an additional 804 tpy in NOX
emission reductions; and (3) a 227 tons per ozone season NOX
benefit. In addition, EPA finds that the alternative BART emission
limits will result in reductions surplus to CAA requirements as of 2002
and will be implemented prior to the end of 2018. EPA proposes to
approve the November 28, 2016 SIP submittal as it meets the
requirements in CAA section 169A and in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA also
proposes to incorporate by reference the permit requirements for power
boilers 24 and 25 issued August 17, 2016 for the Mill, which include
alternative emission requirements, as well as monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements.
EPA also finds that this SIP revision meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(l) and will not interfere with attainment and maintenance
of any NAAQS, reasonable further progress or any other applicable CAA
requirement. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve Maryland's November 28,
2016 SIP revision submittal as it meets CAA requirements.
IV. 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 the permit requirements for power boilers 24
and 25 issued August 17, 2016 for Verso Luke Paper Mill, which include
alternative emission requirements, as well as monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements for power boilers 24 and 25 as discussed in
section II of this notice of proposed rulemaking and the TSD. 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).
V. 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, pertaining to alternative BART
emission limits for Verso Luke Paper Mill, does
[[Page 24617]]
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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 6, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2017-10913 Filed 5-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P