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
<![CDATA[
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 https://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 https://
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 https://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 https://
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 https://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 https://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
