Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Approval of an Alternative Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standard, 22203-22207 [2018-09889]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. F. Environment We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only twelve hours on each of two days that restricts entry on a onehalf mile stretch of the Upper Mississippi River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023–01– 001–01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination will be made available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. G. Protest Activities The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels. Dated: May 9, 2018. Scott A. Stoermer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: [FR Doc. 2018–10191 Filed 5–11–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: ■ 2. Add § 165.T08–0430 to read as follows: nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES ■ (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Upper Mississippi River between mile marker (MM) 179 and MM 179.5, extending the entire width of the river, in St. Louis, MO. Jkt 244001 40 CFR Part 52 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Approval of an Alternative Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standard Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: § 165.T08–0430 Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, St. Louis, MO. 14:43 May 11, 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0394; FRL–9977– 84—Region 3] Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. VerDate Sep<11>2014 (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 7 a.m. on May 14, 2018 through 7:00 p.m. on May 15, 2018. (c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7 a.m. through 7 p.m. each day on May 14, 2018 and May 15, 2018. (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River. (2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF–FM Channel 16 or by telephone at 314–269–2332. (3) All persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at the slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative. (e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the State of Maryland’s state implementation plan (SIP). Maryland SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 22203 requested that EPA incorporate by reference into the Maryland SIP a Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) order establishing an alternative volatile organic compound (VOC) emission standard for National Gypsum Company (NGC) that will ensure that this source remains a minor stationary source of VOCs. EPA is approving the SIP submittal incorporating by reference MDE’s order for NGC in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). DATES: This final rule is effective on June 13, 2018. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0394. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through https:// www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory A. Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On June 24, 2016, MDE submitted a formal revision to the Maryland SIP. The SIP revision consisted of a request to incorporate by reference a MDE departmental order establishing an alternative VOC emission standard for NGC in connection with the permit-toconstruct conditions issued by MDE to ensure that it remains a minor stationary source of VOCs. The alternative VOC emissions limit is 195 pounds per operating day (lbs/day) with at least a 99% overall VOC control efficiency at Board Kiln No. 1. NGC is a major stationary source of nitrogen oxides (NOX), but is not a major stationary source for VOCs. NGC has two major manufacturing lines: Board Kiln No. 1 and Board Kiln No. 2. NGC was subject to VOC emission limits on its kilns in COMAR 26.11.06.06, which is included in the Maryland SIP. Since Board Kiln No. 1 was installed before May 12, 1972, COMAR 26.11.06.06B(1)(a) required its VOC emissions to be less than 200 lbs/day E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM 14MYR1 22204 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES unless the discharge is reduced by 85 percent or more overall. Because Board Kiln No. 2 was installed in April 1998, it was subject to COMAR 26.11.06.06B(1)(b), which, except as provided in COMAR 26.11.06.06E, limited the discharge of VOC to not exceed 20 lbs/day unless the discharge is reduced by 85 percent or more overall. Under COMAR 26.11.06.06E (‘‘Exceptions’’), a source may request an exception to a VOC emission limit from MDE if the source is not subject to new source review (NSR) and if the source is unable to comply with COMAR 26.11.06.06B (‘‘Control of VOC from Installations’’). COMAR 26.11.06.06E(5) requires MDE to submit the exception to EPA for inclusion in the Maryland SIP. MDE entered a consent order with NGC on March 11, 2016 establishing an alternative VOC emission limit for Board Kiln No. 1 and Board Kiln No. 2. On August 28, 2017, EPA simultaneously published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) (82 FR 40743) and a direct final rule (DFR) (82 FR 40715) approving Maryland’s June 2016 SIP revision submittal which requested incorporation by reference of a MDE order that includes an alternative VOC emission standard for NGC. EPA received an adverse comment on the rulemaking and withdrew the DFR prior to the effective date of November 27, 2017. II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA’s Analysis In the June 24, 2016 SIP submittal, MDE included an order authorizing an alternative VOC emissions standard per COMAR 26.11.06.06E in connection with the construction permit MDE previously prepared for NGC. MDE requested that EPA incorporate by reference the order with the alternative VOC emissions standard into the Maryland SIP, as required by COMAR 26.11.06.06E(5). MDE had determined that NGC met requirements for the VOC alternative limit in COMAR 26.11.06.06E. One requirement in COMAR 26.11.06.06E(3)(c) is that the alternative VOC limit not interfere with reasonable progress. The MDE order for NGC requires that NGC comply with the following alternative VOC standards and other conditions: (1) NGC shall install a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) on Board Kiln No. 1, which is designed to achieve at least a 99% overall VOC control efficiency, or not greater than 0.5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of VOC in the flue gases exiting the RTO; (2) total VOC emissions from Board Kiln No. 1 and Board Kiln No. 2, combined, shall not exceed 195 lbs/day; (3) total premises-wide VOC VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:43 May 11, 2018 Jkt 244001 emissions shall be less than 25 tons in any rolling 12-month period to ensure that the total net VOC emissions increase resulting from the modification of Board Kiln No. 1, in addition to Board Kiln No. 2’s emissions, is less than the nonattainment NSR threshold of 25 tons in any rolling 12-month period; (4) NGC shall vent the flue gases from Board Kiln No. 1 through the RTO prior to discharging to the atmosphere when manufacturing silicone XP water resistant wallboard and eXP water resistant wallboard; (5) the temperature of the combustion zone of the RTO shall be maintained to at least the minimum temperature established during the most recent stack emissions tests demonstrating compliance with the daily VOC emission limit of 195 pounds per operating day; (6) NGC shall manufacture regular wallboard (any wallboard that is not silicone XP water resistant wallboard or eXP water resistant wallboard and is not prohibited for production by MDE) only in Board Kiln No. 2; and (7) NGC shall monitor daily production for each type of wallboard and shall calculate total daily VOC emissions from Board Kiln No. 1 and Board Kiln No. 2 to demonstrate compliance with the alternative VOC emission standard of 195 pounds per operating day. After evaluating the SIP revision, EPA finds that the submittal strengthens the State of Maryland’s SIP and is in accordance with COMAR 26.11.06.06 (which is in the Maryland SIP and provides for VOC alternative limits). EPA also finds the submittal is in accordance with section 110 of the CAA, including 110(a) and 110(l), as the SIP revision will not interfere with reasonable further progress, attainment of any national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), or any other applicable CAA requirements. The alternative VOC limit for NGC imposes a more stringent combined VOC emissions limit on both kilns of 195 lbs/ day compared to 220 lbs/day which would otherwise apply under COMAR 26.11.06.06 to the kilns. In addition to the lbs/day limit, NGC is subject to other limits EPA finds should restrict VOC emissions including installation of a RTO on Board Kiln No. 1 with 99% removal efficiency for VOCs and a limit on plant-wide VOCs of 25 tons per 12 month rolling period. Thus, EPA finds the more stringent VOC lbs/day limit plus other measures in the MDE Order should yield greater VOC emissions reductions from NGC’s kilns than the generally applicable limit under the SIP. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 III. Public Comments and EPA’s Response EPA received one public comment on the August 28, 2017 NPR (82 FR 40743) to approve Maryland’s June 24, 2016 SIP submittal. Comment: EPA should not grant an alternative limit that is so much more than the 20 lbs/day VOCs allowed in the State of Maryland. EPA should follow the rules already in place for cement kilns in Maryland and not let this facility create ten times more VOCs which create ozone in other states. EPA should conduct modeling to determine what effect the increased VOC emissions will have on downwind areas that cannot meet ozone standards. Additionally, EPA should determine whether or not the increase of VOC will result in increased ozone in the immediate areas as Baltimore has had several high ozone air quality days. The commenter stated EPA should not reduce health standards nor relax regulatory relief. Finally, the commenter cited health effects of ozone pollution and asked EPA to not let cement kilns pollute more. Response: First, EPA notes that the VOC limits at the facility prior to this action were 20 lbs per day at Kiln #2 and 200 lbs per day at Kiln #1, for an overall total permitted limit of 220 lbs/ day from both kilns. The new limit will be 195 lbs/day from both kilns combined, which is a 25 lb/day decrease in the overall permitted amount of VOCs allowed from both kilns. Thus, the facility is not allowed to increase its VOC emissions tenfold, as commenter states. Second, the request is in accord with rules already in place in Maryland’s SIP. Pursuant to the Maryland SIP, COMAR 26.11.06.06E (‘‘Exceptions’’), a source may request an exception to a VOC emission limit from MDE if the source is not subject to NSR and if the source is unable to comply with COMAR 26.11.06.06B. MDE concluded NGC was not subject to NSR and that NGC was unable to comply with COMAR 26.11.06.06B, making it eligible to apply for an exception under COMAR 26.11.06.06E. However, because exceptions under COMAR 26.11.06.06E require EPA approval of specific emission limitations, MDE submitted the alternative VOC limit to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. As described above and in the DFR, EPA finds the alternative limit permissible within the scope of COMAR 26.11.06.06E for an alternative VOC limit for NGC. EPA notes that Maryland regulation COMAR 26.11.06.06B(1)(b), which establishes the 20 lbs/day VOC limit E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM 14MYR1 nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations cited in the comment and is currently applicable to Board Kiln No. 2, itself provides that alternative limits can be appropriate in certain circumstances, even outside the exceptions available in COMAR 26.11.06.06E. Specifically, the Maryland regulation states that in addition to the exceptions provision, an alternative limit to the 20 lbs/day can be appropriate if ‘‘the discharge is reduced by 85 percent or more overall.’’ Thus, on its face Maryland’s existing, SIPapproved regulations explicitly contemplate deviation from the 20 lb/ day VOC limit for Board Kiln No. 2 in certain circumstances. In addition, COMAR 26.11.06.06E provides further conditions under which the state may establish an alternative emission limit, subject to EPA approval. In order to grant such an exception, COMAR 26.11.06.06E(3) requires the following: (3) The Department may grant an exception to § B(1)(b) or B(2)(c) of this regulation if it determines that: (a) Control methods, if any, necessary to meet the requirements of § B(1)(b) or B(2)(c) are not reasonable for the installation; (b) The applicant has the ability to operate and maintain the equipment and has the production controls necessary to meet the alternative VOC emission standard established by the Department instead of the requirements of § B(1)(b) or B(2)(c); and (c) Emissions from the installation will not interfere with reasonable further progress if the exception is granted. EPA finds that MDE has found that these criteria have been met, and included in the docket MDE’s five-page Fact Sheet and Tentative Determination (Fact Sheet), which discusses each of the elements listed above. Section III of the Fact Sheet notes that the VOC content in the flue gases from Board Kiln No. 2 is not significant, and therefore add-on controls would not be cost-effective and that space constraints at Board Kiln No. 2 make it economically infeasible to install an RTO as a control method under COMAR 26.11.06.06E(3)(a) above. As to criterion (3)(b) above, MDE’s Fact Sheet, Section V(1), requires that NGC conduct a compliance demonstration for the RTO installed on Kiln #1 within 180 days of start-up of the RTO, and also conduct stack tests on Kiln #2 to demonstrate compliance with the alternative emission rate, and thereafter monitor production rates from each kiln in order to calculate daily VOC emissions to demonstrate compliance with the 195 lbs/day limit. This is how MDE will determine that NGC has the ability to VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:43 May 11, 2018 Jkt 244001 operate and maintain the equipment and has production controls needed to meet the alternative standard. Finally, regarding criterion (3)(c), Section V of the Fact Sheet (p.5) contains MDE’s analysis of air quality, which states that installation of an RTO on Board Kiln No. 1 would significantly reduce the emissions of VOC. Furthermore, and relevant to commenter’s concern, the analysis in Section V of the Fact Sheet states that although the alternative VOC limit for Board Kiln No. 2 will increase above the 20 lbs/day currently permitted under Maryland regulation, the new combined VOC limits between Board Kiln No. 1 and Board Kiln No. 2 are in fact more stringent than the existing combined VOC limits for the two units, and thus that the proposed exception will be beneficial to the local economy and air quality. In accordance with Section 110(l) of the CAA, when approving a revision to a SIP EPA is also required to ensure that the state SIP revision will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress of any other applicable requirement in the CAA. In this case, the combined 195 lbs/day VOC limit for both kilns, along with the requirement that the control device on Kiln No. 1 must meet a 99% VOC destruction efficiency, are together more stringent than the VOC limits otherwise presumptively applicable to NGC under COMAR 26.11.06.06, which total 220 lbs/day (200 lbs/day for kiln 1 and 20 lbs/day for kiln 2). EPA does not expect that this more stringent combined limit between the two kilns will result in interference with other CAA requirements, including attainment of or reasonable further progress towards any NAAQS. In response to the commenter’s concern that EPA should follow the rules already in place for cement kilns in Maryland and not let this facility create ten times more VOCs which create ozone in other states, EPA first notes that the NGC facility makes wallboard and is not a cement kiln. Second, the total allowable emissions of VOCs from the Kilns 1 and 2 are decreasing from 220 lbs/day to 195 lbs/ day under this SIP revision, rather than increasing ten times. The commenter also requested that EPA should conduct modeling to determine what effect the increased VOC emissions will have on downwind areas that cannot meet ozone standards. In the same vein, the commenter requested that EPA should determine whether or not the increase of VOC will result in increased ozone in the immediate areas as Baltimore has had PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 22205 several high ozone air quality days. However, as stated above, this SIP revision decreases the allowable VOC emissions from the two kilns by lowering the overall permitted VOC emission limits from the two kilns from a presumptive total limit of 220 lbs/day to 195 lbs/day. This lower limit on VOC emissions from the kilns should not result in increased ozone in the Baltimore area. Regarding modelling, EPA is not aware of any provision of the CAA or Maryland SIP requiring MDE or EPA to conduct modeling in these circumstances to determine impacts on ozone NAAQS in downwind or nearby areas. The more stringent combined VOC limit of 195 lbs/day and the VOC reductions from the RTO on Kiln No. 1 should result in additional expected VOC reductions from NGC, and therefore the alternative VOC limit for NGC should not interfere with ozone NAAQS in downwind areas such as Baltimore nor allow more ‘‘pollution’’ from NGC. Finally, EPA’s action here is approving an alternative VOC emission limit proposed by MDE which MDE determined is in accordance with requirements of the Maryland SIP. Our action is not ‘‘reducing health standards’’ nor relaxing ‘‘regulatory relief.’’ Indeed, the NAAQS for ozone, which is set at a level to protect human health and the environment, is not being altered. The more stringent 195 lbs/day VOC emission limit for the kilns should not lead to more pollution as alluded to by the commenter. IV. Final Action EPA is approving the Maryland SIP revision submitted on June 24, 2016, which requests incorporation by reference of a MDE order that includes an alternative VOC emission standard for NGC because the revision is in accordance with the Maryland SIP and meets the requirements in CAA section 110. This rule, which responds to the adverse comment received, finalizes our proposed approval of Maryland’s SIP submittal incorporating by reference MDE’s order for NGC. V. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference Maryland’s Department of the Environment Order No. 510–0233– 6–0646 and –1569. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through http:// www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM 14MYR1 22206 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.1 VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements 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 action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866. • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES 1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:43 May 11, 2018 Jkt 244001 in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because this is a rule of particular applicability, PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801. C. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 13, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action, which approves Maryland’s SIP revision incorporating by reference a MDE order establishing a VOC emission standard for NGC, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: May 1, 2018. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart V—Maryland 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by adding the entry ‘‘National Gypsum Company’’ at the end of the table to read as follows: ■ § 52.1070 Identification of plan. * * * * * (d) EPA approved state sourcespecific requirements. E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM 14MYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2018 / Rules and Regulations Permit number/ type Name of source * National (NGC). Gypsum * * * * * Company * Departmental Order ..................... * ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0716; FRL–9977– 26—Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving portions of three Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals pertaining to CAA requirements to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in other states. DATES: This rule is effective on June 13, 2018. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0716. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. SUMMARY: nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES 3/11/2016 Additional explanation * * 5/14/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation]. * The SIP approval includes specific alternative volatile organic compound emission limits and other conditions for NGC as established by the Departmental Order. Carl Young, 214–665–6645, young.carl@ epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 14:43 May 11, 2018 * EPA approval date FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [FR Doc. 2018–09889 Filed 5–11–18; 8:45 am] VerDate Sep<11>2014 State effective date Jkt 244001 I. Background The background for this action is discussed in detail in our February 14, 2018 proposal (83 FR 6493). In that document we proposed to approve portions of three Texas SIP submittals pertaining to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements based on our conclusion, which is consistent with the State’s ultimate conclusion, that emissions from Texas will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 p.m. 2.5 NAAQS in other states. Specifically, we proposed to approve (1) the portions of the April 4, 2008 and May 1, 2008 SIP submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and (2) the portion of the November 23, 2009 submittal for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as they pertain to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). We received comments in support of our proposal from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Vistra Energy Corporation. TCEQ also noted in their comments that they disagree with EPA’s method for determining significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. We acknowledge the State’s position and welcome continued discussion and collaboration between EPA and the State on the issue. II. Final Action We are approving the portions of the April 4, 2008 and May 1, 2008 SIP submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the portion of the November 23, 2009 submittal for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as they pertain to CAA requirements to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 22207 III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because E:\FR\FM\14MYR1.SGM 14MYR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22203-22207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09889]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0394; FRL-9977-84--Region 3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maryland; Approval of an Alternative Volatile Organic Compound Emission 
Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a 
revision to the State of Maryland's state implementation plan (SIP). 
Maryland requested that EPA incorporate by reference into the Maryland 
SIP a Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) order establishing 
an alternative volatile organic compound (VOC) emission standard for 
National Gypsum Company (NGC) that will ensure that this source remains 
a minor stationary source of VOCs. EPA is approving the SIP submittal 
incorporating by reference MDE's order for NGC in accordance with the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0394. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through 
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in 
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory A. Becoat, (215) 814-2036, or 
by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    On June 24, 2016, MDE submitted a formal revision to the Maryland 
SIP. The SIP revision consisted of a request to incorporate by 
reference a MDE departmental order establishing an alternative VOC 
emission standard for NGC in connection with the permit-to-construct 
conditions issued by MDE to ensure that it remains a minor stationary 
source of VOCs. The alternative VOC emissions limit is 195 pounds per 
operating day (lbs/day) with at least a 99% overall VOC control 
efficiency at Board Kiln No. 1.
    NGC is a major stationary source of nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), but is not a major stationary source for VOCs. NGC 
has two major manufacturing lines: Board Kiln No. 1 and Board Kiln No. 
2. NGC was subject to VOC emission limits on its kilns in COMAR 
26.11.06.06, which is included in the Maryland SIP. Since Board Kiln 
No. 1 was installed before May 12, 1972, COMAR 26.11.06.06B(1)(a) 
required its VOC emissions to be less than 200 lbs/day

[[Page 22204]]

unless the discharge is reduced by 85 percent or more overall. Because 
Board Kiln No. 2 was installed in April 1998, it was subject to COMAR 
26.11.06.06B(1)(b), which, except as provided in COMAR 26.11.06.06E, 
limited the discharge of VOC to not exceed 20 lbs/day unless the 
discharge is reduced by 85 percent or more overall. Under COMAR 
26.11.06.06E (``Exceptions''), a source may request an exception to a 
VOC emission limit from MDE if the source is not subject to new source 
review (NSR) and if the source is unable to comply with COMAR 
26.11.06.06B (``Control of VOC from Installations''). COMAR 
26.11.06.06E(5) requires MDE to submit the exception to EPA for 
inclusion in the Maryland SIP. MDE entered a consent order with NGC on 
March 11, 2016 establishing an alternative VOC emission limit for Board 
Kiln No. 1 and Board Kiln No. 2.
    On August 28, 2017, EPA simultaneously published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPR) (82 FR 40743) and a direct final rule (DFR) 
(82 FR 40715) approving Maryland's June 2016 SIP revision submittal 
which requested incorporation by reference of a MDE order that includes 
an alternative VOC emission standard for NGC. EPA received an adverse 
comment on the rulemaking and withdrew the DFR prior to the effective 
date of November 27, 2017.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA's Analysis

    In the June 24, 2016 SIP submittal, MDE included an order 
authorizing an alternative VOC emissions standard per COMAR 
26.11.06.06E in connection with the construction permit MDE previously 
prepared for NGC. MDE requested that EPA incorporate by reference the 
order with the alternative VOC emissions standard into the Maryland 
SIP, as required by COMAR 26.11.06.06E(5). MDE had determined that NGC 
met requirements for the VOC alternative limit in COMAR 26.11.06.06E. 
One requirement in COMAR 26.11.06.06E(3)(c) is that the alternative VOC 
limit not interfere with reasonable progress. The MDE order for NGC 
requires that NGC comply with the following alternative VOC standards 
and other conditions: (1) NGC shall install a regenerative thermal 
oxidizer (RTO) on Board Kiln No. 1, which is designed to achieve at 
least a 99% overall VOC control efficiency, or not greater than 0.5 
parts per million by volume (ppmv) of VOC in the flue gases exiting the 
RTO; (2) total VOC emissions from Board Kiln No. 1 and Board Kiln No. 
2, combined, shall not exceed 195 lbs/day; (3) total premises-wide VOC 
emissions shall be less than 25 tons in any rolling 12-month period to 
ensure that the total net VOC emissions increase resulting from the 
modification of Board Kiln No. 1, in addition to Board Kiln No. 2's 
emissions, is less than the nonattainment NSR threshold of 25 tons in 
any rolling 12-month period; (4) NGC shall vent the flue gases from 
Board Kiln No. 1 through the RTO prior to discharging to the atmosphere 
when manufacturing silicone XP water resistant wallboard and eXP water 
resistant wallboard; (5) the temperature of the combustion zone of the 
RTO shall be maintained to at least the minimum temperature established 
during the most recent stack emissions tests demonstrating compliance 
with the daily VOC emission limit of 195 pounds per operating day; (6) 
NGC shall manufacture regular wallboard (any wallboard that is not 
silicone XP water resistant wallboard or eXP water resistant wallboard 
and is not prohibited for production by MDE) only in Board Kiln No. 2; 
and (7) NGC shall monitor daily production for each type of wallboard 
and shall calculate total daily VOC emissions from Board Kiln No. 1 and 
Board Kiln No. 2 to demonstrate compliance with the alternative VOC 
emission standard of 195 pounds per operating day.
    After evaluating the SIP revision, EPA finds that the submittal 
strengthens the State of Maryland's SIP and is in accordance with COMAR 
26.11.06.06 (which is in the Maryland SIP and provides for VOC 
alternative limits). EPA also finds the submittal is in accordance with 
section 110 of the CAA, including 110(a) and 110(l), as the SIP 
revision will not interfere with reasonable further progress, 
attainment of any national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), or any 
other applicable CAA requirements. The alternative VOC limit for NGC 
imposes a more stringent combined VOC emissions limit on both kilns of 
195 lbs/day compared to 220 lbs/day which would otherwise apply under 
COMAR 26.11.06.06 to the kilns. In addition to the lbs/day limit, NGC 
is subject to other limits EPA finds should restrict VOC emissions 
including installation of a RTO on Board Kiln No. 1 with 99% removal 
efficiency for VOCs and a limit on plant-wide VOCs of 25 tons per 12 
month rolling period. Thus, EPA finds the more stringent VOC lbs/day 
limit plus other measures in the MDE Order should yield greater VOC 
emissions reductions from NGC's kilns than the generally applicable 
limit under the SIP.

III. Public Comments and EPA's Response

    EPA received one public comment on the August 28, 2017 NPR (82 FR 
40743) to approve Maryland's June 24, 2016 SIP submittal.
    Comment: EPA should not grant an alternative limit that is so much 
more than the 20 lbs/day VOCs allowed in the State of Maryland. EPA 
should follow the rules already in place for cement kilns in Maryland 
and not let this facility create ten times more VOCs which create ozone 
in other states. EPA should conduct modeling to determine what effect 
the increased VOC emissions will have on downwind areas that cannot 
meet ozone standards. Additionally, EPA should determine whether or not 
the increase of VOC will result in increased ozone in the immediate 
areas as Baltimore has had several high ozone air quality days. The 
commenter stated EPA should not reduce health standards nor relax 
regulatory relief. Finally, the commenter cited health effects of ozone 
pollution and asked EPA to not let cement kilns pollute more.
    Response: First, EPA notes that the VOC limits at the facility 
prior to this action were 20 lbs per day at Kiln #2 and 200 lbs per day 
at Kiln #1, for an overall total permitted limit of 220 lbs/day from 
both kilns. The new limit will be 195 lbs/day from both kilns combined, 
which is a 25 lb/day decrease in the overall permitted amount of VOCs 
allowed from both kilns. Thus, the facility is not allowed to increase 
its VOC emissions tenfold, as commenter states. Second, the request is 
in accord with rules already in place in Maryland's SIP. Pursuant to 
the Maryland SIP, COMAR 26.11.06.06E (``Exceptions''), a source may 
request an exception to a VOC emission limit from MDE if the source is 
not subject to NSR and if the source is unable to comply with COMAR 
26.11.06.06B. MDE concluded NGC was not subject to NSR and that NGC was 
unable to comply with COMAR 26.11.06.06B, making it eligible to apply 
for an exception under COMAR 26.11.06.06E. However, because exceptions 
under COMAR 26.11.06.06E require EPA approval of specific emission 
limitations, MDE submitted the alternative VOC limit to EPA for 
inclusion in the SIP. As described above and in the DFR, EPA finds the 
alternative limit permissible within the scope of COMAR 26.11.06.06E 
for an alternative VOC limit for NGC.
    EPA notes that Maryland regulation COMAR 26.11.06.06B(1)(b), which 
establishes the 20 lbs/day VOC limit

[[Page 22205]]

cited in the comment and is currently applicable to Board Kiln No. 2, 
itself provides that alternative limits can be appropriate in certain 
circumstances, even outside the exceptions available in COMAR 
26.11.06.06E. Specifically, the Maryland regulation states that in 
addition to the exceptions provision, an alternative limit to the 20 
lbs/day can be appropriate if ``the discharge is reduced by 85 percent 
or more overall.'' Thus, on its face Maryland's existing, SIP-approved 
regulations explicitly contemplate deviation from the 20 lb/day VOC 
limit for Board Kiln No. 2 in certain circumstances. In addition, COMAR 
26.11.06.06E provides further conditions under which the state may 
establish an alternative emission limit, subject to EPA approval.
    In order to grant such an exception, COMAR 26.11.06.06E(3) requires 
the following:
    (3) The Department may grant an exception to Sec.  B(1)(b) or 
B(2)(c) of this regulation if it determines that:
    (a) Control methods, if any, necessary to meet the requirements of 
Sec.  B(1)(b) or B(2)(c) are not reasonable for the installation;
    (b) The applicant has the ability to operate and maintain the 
equipment and has the production controls necessary to meet the 
alternative VOC emission standard established by the Department instead 
of the requirements of Sec.  B(1)(b) or B(2)(c); and
    (c) Emissions from the installation will not interfere with 
reasonable further progress if the exception is granted.
    EPA finds that MDE has found that these criteria have been met, and 
included in the docket MDE's five-page Fact Sheet and Tentative 
Determination (Fact Sheet), which discusses each of the elements listed 
above. Section III of the Fact Sheet notes that the VOC content in the 
flue gases from Board Kiln No. 2 is not significant, and therefore add-
on controls would not be cost-effective and that space constraints at 
Board Kiln No. 2 make it economically infeasible to install an RTO as a 
control method under COMAR 26.11.06.06E(3)(a) above. As to criterion 
(3)(b) above, MDE's Fact Sheet, Section V(1), requires that NGC conduct 
a compliance demonstration for the RTO installed on Kiln #1 within 180 
days of start-up of the RTO, and also conduct stack tests on Kiln #2 to 
demonstrate compliance with the alternative emission rate, and 
thereafter monitor production rates from each kiln in order to 
calculate daily VOC emissions to demonstrate compliance with the 195 
lbs/day limit. This is how MDE will determine that NGC has the ability 
to operate and maintain the equipment and has production controls 
needed to meet the alternative standard. Finally, regarding criterion 
(3)(c), Section V of the Fact Sheet (p.5) contains MDE's analysis of 
air quality, which states that installation of an RTO on Board Kiln No. 
1 would significantly reduce the emissions of VOC. Furthermore, and 
relevant to commenter's concern, the analysis in Section V of the Fact 
Sheet states that although the alternative VOC limit for Board Kiln No. 
2 will increase above the 20 lbs/day currently permitted under Maryland 
regulation, the new combined VOC limits between Board Kiln No. 1 and 
Board Kiln No. 2 are in fact more stringent than the existing combined 
VOC limits for the two units, and thus that the proposed exception will 
be beneficial to the local economy and air quality.
    In accordance with Section 110(l) of the CAA, when approving a 
revision to a SIP EPA is also required to ensure that the state SIP 
revision will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 
attainment and reasonable further progress of any other applicable 
requirement in the CAA. In this case, the combined 195 lbs/day VOC 
limit for both kilns, along with the requirement that the control 
device on Kiln No. 1 must meet a 99% VOC destruction efficiency, are 
together more stringent than the VOC limits otherwise presumptively 
applicable to NGC under COMAR 26.11.06.06, which total 220 lbs/day (200 
lbs/day for kiln 1 and 20 lbs/day for kiln 2). EPA does not expect that 
this more stringent combined limit between the two kilns will result in 
interference with other CAA requirements, including attainment of or 
reasonable further progress towards any NAAQS.
    In response to the commenter's concern that EPA should follow the 
rules already in place for cement kilns in Maryland and not let this 
facility create ten times more VOCs which create ozone in other states, 
EPA first notes that the NGC facility makes wallboard and is not a 
cement kiln. Second, the total allowable emissions of VOCs from the 
Kilns 1 and 2 are decreasing from 220 lbs/day to 195 lbs/day under this 
SIP revision, rather than increasing ten times.
    The commenter also requested that EPA should conduct modeling to 
determine what effect the increased VOC emissions will have on downwind 
areas that cannot meet ozone standards. In the same vein, the commenter 
requested that EPA should determine whether or not the increase of VOC 
will result in increased ozone in the immediate areas as Baltimore has 
had several high ozone air quality days. However, as stated above, this 
SIP revision decreases the allowable VOC emissions from the two kilns 
by lowering the overall permitted VOC emission limits from the two 
kilns from a presumptive total limit of 220 lbs/day to 195 lbs/day. 
This lower limit on VOC emissions from the kilns should not result in 
increased ozone in the Baltimore area. Regarding modelling, EPA is not 
aware of any provision of the CAA or Maryland SIP requiring MDE or EPA 
to conduct modeling in these circumstances to determine impacts on 
ozone NAAQS in downwind or nearby areas. The more stringent combined 
VOC limit of 195 lbs/day and the VOC reductions from the RTO on Kiln 
No. 1 should result in additional expected VOC reductions from NGC, and 
therefore the alternative VOC limit for NGC should not interfere with 
ozone NAAQS in downwind areas such as Baltimore nor allow more 
``pollution'' from NGC.
    Finally, EPA's action here is approving an alternative VOC emission 
limit proposed by MDE which MDE determined is in accordance with 
requirements of the Maryland SIP. Our action is not ``reducing health 
standards'' nor relaxing ``regulatory relief.'' Indeed, the NAAQS for 
ozone, which is set at a level to protect human health and the 
environment, is not being altered. The more stringent 195 lbs/day VOC 
emission limit for the kilns should not lead to more pollution as 
alluded to by the commenter.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Maryland SIP revision submitted on June 24, 
2016, which requests incorporation by reference of a MDE order that 
includes an alternative VOC emission standard for NGC because the 
revision is in accordance with the Maryland SIP and meets the 
requirements in CAA section 110. This rule, which responds to the 
adverse comment received, finalizes our proposed approval of Maryland's 
SIP submittal incorporating by reference MDE's order for NGC.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference Maryland's 
Department of the Environment Order No. 510-0233-6-0646 and -1569. EPA 
has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally 
available through http://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III 
Office (please contact the

[[Page 22206]]

person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of 
this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have 
been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated 
by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable 
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the 
final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by 
reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    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 action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866.
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule 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.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the 
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules 
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency 
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect 
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required 
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by July 13, 2018. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action, which approves Maryland's SIP revision 
incorporating by reference a MDE order establishing a VOC emission 
standard for NGC, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce 
its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.


    Dated: May 1, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by adding 
the entry ``National Gypsum Company'' at the end of the table to read 
as follows:


Sec.  52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) EPA approved state source-specific requirements.

[[Page 22207]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
          Name of source             Permit number/ type   effective date             EPA approval date                    Additional explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
National Gypsum Company (NGC).....  Departmental Order...       3/11/2016  5/14/2018 [Insert Federal Register      The SIP approval includes specific
                                                                            citation].                              alternative volatile organic
                                                                                                                    compound emission limits and other
                                                                                                                    conditions for NGC as established by
                                                                                                                    the Departmental Order.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-09889 Filed 5-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P