Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report, 43571-43576 [2018-18526]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules and the Treasury Department participated in their development. List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: ■ Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * ■ Par. 2. Section 1.170A–1 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (h)(3) through (h)(5) as paragraphs (h)(4) through (h)(6), and adding a new paragraph (h)(3) to read as follows: § 1.170A–1 Charitable, etc., contributions and gifts; allowance of deduction. amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1 * * * * * (h) * * * (3) Payments resulting in state or local tax benefits. (i) State or local tax credits. Except as provided in paragraph (h)(3)(v) of this section, if a taxpayer makes a payment or transfers property to or for the use of an entity listed in section 170(c), the amount of the taxpayer’s charitable contribution deduction under section 170(a) is reduced by the amount of any state or local tax credit that the taxpayer receives or expects to receive in consideration for the taxpayer’s payment or transfer. (ii) State or local tax deductions. (A) In general. If a taxpayer makes a payment or transfers property to or for the use of an entity listed in section 170(c), and the taxpayer receives or expects to receive a state or local tax deduction that does not exceed the amount of the taxpayer’s payment or the fair market value of the property transferred by the taxpayer to such entity, the taxpayer is not required to reduce its charitable contribution deduction under section 170(a) on account of such state or local tax deduction. (B) Excess state or local tax deductions. If the taxpayer receives or expects to receive a state or local tax deduction that exceeds the amount of the taxpayer’s payment or the fair market value of the property transferred, the taxpayer’s charitable contribution deduction under section 170 is reduced. (iii) In consideration for. For purposes of paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section, the term in consideration for shall have the meaning set forth in § 1.170A–13(f)(6), VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Aug 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 except that the state or local tax credit need not be provided by the donee organization. (iv) Amount of reduction. For purposes of paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section, the amount of any state or local tax credit is the maximum credit allowable that corresponds to the amount of the taxpayer’s payment or transfer to the entity listed in section 170(c). (v) State or local tax. For purposes of paragraph (h)(3) of this section, the term state or local tax means a tax imposed by a State, a possession of the United States, or by a political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or by the District of Columbia. (vi) Exception. Paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section shall not apply to any payment or transfer of property if the amount of the state or local tax credit received or expected to be received by the taxpayer does not exceed 15 percent of the taxpayer’s payment, or 15 percent of the fair market value of the property transferred by the taxpayer. (vii) Examples. The following examples illustrate the provisions of this paragraph (h)(3). The examples in paragraph (h)(6) of this section are not illustrative for purposes of this paragraph (h)(3). Example 1. A, an individual, makes a payment of $1,000 to X, an entity listed in section 170(c). In exchange for the payment, A receives or expects to receive a state tax credit of 70% of the amount of A’s payment to X. Under paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section, A’s charitable contribution deduction is reduced by $700 (70% × $1,000). This reduction occurs regardless of whether A is able to claim the state tax credit in that year. Thus, A’s charitable contribution deduction for the $1,000 payment to X may not exceed $300. Example 2. B, an individual, transfers a painting to Y, an entity listed in section 170(c). At the time of the transfer, the painting has a fair market value of $100,000. In exchange for the painting, B receives or expects to receive a state tax credit equal to 10% of the fair market value of the painting. Under paragraph (h)(3)(vi) of this section, B is not required to apply the general rule of paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section because the amount of the tax credit received or expected to be received by B does not exceed 15% of the fair market value of the property transferred to Y. Accordingly, the amount of B’s charitable contribution deduction for the transfer of the painting is not reduced under paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section. Example 3. C, an individual, makes a payment of $1,000 to Z, an entity listed in section 170(c). In exchange for the payment, under state M law, C is entitled to receive a state tax deduction equal to the amount paid by C to Z. Under paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of this section, C is not required to reduce its charitable contribution deduction under section 170(a) on account of the state tax deduction. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 43571 (viii) Effective/applicability date. This paragraph (h)(3) applies to amounts paid or property transferred by a taxpayer after August 27, 2018. * * * * * § 1.170A–13 [Amended] Par. 3. Section 1.170A–13(f)(7) is amended by removing the crossreference ‘‘§ 1.170A–1(h)(4)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘§ 1.170A–1(h)(5)’’. ■ Par. 4. Section 1.642(c)–3 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: ■ § 1.642(c)–3 Adjustments and other special rules for determining unlimited charitable contributions deduction. * * * * * (g) Payments resulting in state or local tax benefits—(1) In general. If the trust or decedent’s estate makes a payment of gross income for a purpose specified in section 170(c), and the trust or decedent’s estate receives or expects to receive a state or local tax benefit in consideration for such payment, § 1.170A–1(h)(3) applies in determining the charitable contribution deduction under section 642(c). (2) Effective/applicability date. Paragraph (g)(1) of this section applies to payments of gross income after August 27, 2018. Kristen Wielobob, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. [FR Doc. 2018–18377 Filed 8–23–18; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4830–01–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0598; FRL–9982– 85—Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. Maryland’s SIP revision, the Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report, addresses Clean Air Act (CAA) provisions that require the State to submit periodic reports addressing reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and to make a determination of the adequacy of E:\FR\FM\27AUP1.SGM 27AUP1 amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1 43572 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules the State’s existing regional haze SIP. Maryland’s progress report notes that the State has implemented the measures that are specified in the regional haze SIP which were due to be in place by the date of the progress report. The progress report also notes that visibility in federal Class I areas that may have been affected by emissions from Maryland is improving and that these Class I areas have already met the applicable RPGs for 2018. EPA is proposing approval of Maryland’s progress report and its determination that the State’s regional haze SIP is adequate to meet these RPGs for the first implementation period, which extends through 2018, and requires no substantive revision. This action is being taken under the CAA. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 26, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– OAR–2017–0598 at http:// www.regulations.gov, or via email to spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the ‘‘For Further Information Contact’’ section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Trouba, (215) 814–2023, or by email at trouba.erin@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision that evaluates progress towards VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Aug 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 visibility improvement in the first implementation period, including progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I federal area 1 (Class I area) within the state and in each Class I area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state’s existing regional haze SIP. The progress report SIP for the first planning period is due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. On February 13, 2012, Maryland submitted the State’s first regional haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308.2 On August 9, 2017, Maryland, through the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), submitted a progress report, as a revision to its SIP, which detailed the progress made in the first planning period toward implementation of the Long-Term Strategy (LTS) outlined in the 2012 regional haze SIP, the visibility improvement measured at Class I areas affected by emissions from Maryland, and a determination of the adequacy of the State’s existing regional haze SIP. II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis Maryland’s regional haze progress report SIP submittal (2017 progress report) addresses the elements for progress reports required under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and includes a determination as required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) that the State’s existing regional haze SIP requires no substantive revision to achieve the established regional haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018. This section summarizes Maryland’s 2017 progress report and EPA’s analysis and proposed approval of Maryland’s submittal. A. Regional Haze Progress Report As required in 40 CFR 51.308(g), Maryland’s 2017 progress report evaluated the status of all measures included in the State’s 2012 regional haze SIP for achieving RPGs for affected Class I areas. Through consultation, states in the Mid Atlantic/Northeast 1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D. 2 On July 6, 2012 (77 FR 39938), EPA approved Maryland’s regional haze SIP submittal addressing the requirements of the first implementation period for regional haze. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Visibility Union (MANE–VU),3 including Maryland, were requested to adopt and implement control strategies to assure reasonable progress towards improvement of visibility in the MANE– VU Class I areas. These strategies are commonly referred to as the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask.’’ The MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ includes: (1) 90% or more reduction in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions at 167 electric generating unit (EGU) ‘‘stacks’’ identified by MANE–VU (or comparable alternative measures), (2) timely implementation of best available retrofit technology (BART) 4 requirements, (3) lower sulfur fuel oil (with limits specified for each state), and (4) continued evaluation of other control measures.5 The strategies from the ‘‘Ask’’ are the measures that Maryland included in the 2012 regional haze SIP and which are addressed in the 2017 progress report. Maryland addressed the measures listed in the 2012 regional haze SIP through implementing the state-wide Healthy Air Act (HAA),6 implementing BART or alternatives to BART, adopting a low-sulfur fuel oil regulation into COMAR 03.03.05.04, and evaluating other control methods to reduce SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX). In response to the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ to achieve 90% or more reduction in SO2 emissions at 167 EGU ‘‘stacks,’’ Maryland demonstrates, in the 2017 progress report, that the HAA has been implemented and has provided significant reductions in SO2 and NOX from coal-fired EGUs, including several BART-eligible units. At the BART eligible EGUs, the existing controls were considered BART for NOX, SO2, and particulate matter (PM). The HAA addressed 15 coal-fired EGUs in the state, including the twelve identified within the ‘‘Ask’s’’ 167 stacks and all seven of the BART-eligible EGUs in the state.7 The HAA established tonnage 3 MANE–VU was formed by the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states, tribes, and federal agencies to coordinate regional haze planning activities for the region to meet requirements in the CAA and federal regional haze regulations. 4 BART eligible sources are those sources which have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air pollutant, were put in place between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed source categories. 5 The MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ was structured around the finding that SO2 emissions were the dominate visibility impairing pollutant at the Northeastern Class I areas and that EGUs comprised the largest SO2 emission sector. 6 The HAA, codified at COMAR 26.11.27, was effective as of July 16, 2007 and was approved by EPA into the Maryland SIP on September 4, 2008 (73 FR 51599). 7 R. Paul Smith Units 3 & 4 have shut down since the approval of Maryland’s regional haze SIP in 2012. The HAA originally addressed 15 units, but currently addresses 13 active EGUs in the state. E:\FR\FM\27AUP1.SGM 27AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules caps for emissions of NOX and SO2 from 15 coal-fired EGUs, 13 of which are still operating. The HAA’s annual SO2 caps were implemented in two phases, first in 2010 and then in 2013. The annual NOX caps were implemented in 2009 and 2012. In the 2017 progress report, Maryland reported that NOX emissions were reduced by 89% from a 2002 baseline from these EGUs and SO2 emissions from these EGUs were reduced by 269,444 tons per year from the 2002 baseline, a 92% reduction from 2002 to 2015. Maryland asserts that the SO2 and NOX emissions reductions under the HAA exceeded reductions that would have been achieved through BART controls alone at the EGUs. The 2017 progress report also addressed implementation of BART and alternatives to BART 8 at Maryland’s two non-EGU BART eligible source specific units—Holcim Cement and Verso Luke Paper. In the BART analysis for Holcim’s Portland cement kiln in Hagerstown, Maryland, the State determined and EPA approved the addition of selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) as BART for PM and NOX and the previously installed controls as BART for SO2. See 77 FR 11827 (February 28, 2012). The SIPapproved regulation, COMAR 26.11.30, pertaining to Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), establishes more stringent NOX limits for Portland Cement Plants in the State, including Holcim Cement. 83 FR 13192 (March 28, 2018). As a result of the RACT requirements, Holcim upgraded its equipment in 2016 from a long-dry kiln to a pre-heater/pre-calciner kiln and installed a SNCR addressing BART requirements for NOX and PM. Holcim is required to meet a limit of 2.4 pounds (lbs) of NOX per ton of clinker on a 30day rolling average effective April 1, 2017. In June 2012, EPA approved BART emission limits for power boiler 25, a BART subject source, at the Verso Luke Paper Mill. 77 FR 39938 (June 13, 2012). In July 2017, EPA removed the previously approved BART requirements for SO2 and NOX from power boiler 25 (No. 25) and replaced them with new, alternative emission requirements as BART.9 EPA established an annual SO2 cap for power boiler 25 and approved alternative BART emission limits for SO2 and NOX for power boiler 24 (No. 24): (1) A new BART emission limit of 0.28 pounds per million British thermal units (lbs/ mmBtu), measured as an hourly average for SO2; and (2) a new BART emission limit of 0.4 lb/mmBtu, measured on a 30-day rolling average for NOX. 82 FR 35451 (July 31, 2017). The BART PM limit on power boiler No. 25 remains at 0.07 lb/MMBtu. Included in the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ and as a measure in the State’s 2012 regional haze SIP was a low-sulfur oil strategy. In 2014, Maryland adopted amendments to COMAR 03.03.05.04, ‘‘Specifications for No. 1 and No. 2 Fuel Oil.’’ The amendments, effective October 13, 2014, lowered the maximum allowable amount of sulfur in #1 and #2 fuel oil in two stages, from 3,000 to 2,000 parts per million (ppm) of sulfur in 2014, and then from 2,000 to 500 ppm of sulfur in 2016. While this strategy does not meet the exact specifications or timeline of the ‘‘Ask,’’ MANE–VU left an option for flexibility in reducing SO2 emissions by implementing other strategies. In the 2012 regional haze SIP, Maryland projected that the reductions achieved by implementing the HAA would greatly exceed projected reductions from fully implementing the ‘‘Ask’s’’ low-sulfur fuel oil strategy. Maryland stated it intends to submit this regulation, COMAR 03.03.05.04, for future SIP approval. In the 2017 progress report, Maryland also mentions EPA approved for the Maryland SIP amendments adopted into COMAR 26.11.38, ‘‘Control of NOX emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units,’’ which addresses the 2012 regional haze SIP measure to evaluate other control methods to reduce SO2 and NOX. 82 FR 24546 (June 29, 2017). For 13 coal-fired EGUs in the state, Maryland asserts this regulation 43573 establishes a system-wide emissions rate of 0.15 lbs/mmBtu on a 30-day rolling average during the ozone season for NOX emissions at all coal-burning EGUs owned by the same company. An additional requirement in COMAR 26.11.38 to optimize controls is monitored by compliance with a 24hour block emissions limit during ozone season for each coal-burning EGU. Although COMAR 26.11.38 is specifically designed to reduce ozone impacts by reducing NOX emissions, Maryland stated in the 2017 progress report that it believes that this regulation benefits visibility in nearby Class I areas because NOX is a visibility impairing pollutant as well as a precursor to ozone. EPA finds that Maryland’s analysis in its 2017 progress report adequately addresses the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g), as the State demonstrated the implementation of control measures in the Maryland regional haze SIP and in the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask.’’ The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) also require the state to provide analysis of emissions trends of visibility-impairing pollutants from the state’s sources by type or category over the past five years based on the most recent updated emissions inventory. In Section 4 of the 2017 progress report, Maryland provided an assessment of the following visibility impairing pollutants: SO2, NOX, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) by category. MANE–VU and Maryland determined that SO2 emissions are the most significant pollutant impacting regional haze in MANE–VU Class I areas, therefore, the bulk of visibility improvement was expected to result from reductions in SO2 emissions from sources inside and outside of the State. The emissions reductions data in Table 1 demonstrates that NOX, SO2, VOC, and PM2.5 emissions have decreased from Maryland’s baseline emissions in 2002 to 2014, the last year for which a comprehensive national emission inventory (NEI) is available. TABLE 1—EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN MARYLAND BY SECTOR IN 1,000 TONS PER YEAR (tpy) amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1 Sector Pollutant Point ..................................................................................................................... Non-Road ............................................................................................................ 8 The requirements for alternative measures are established at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Aug 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 NOX PM2.5 SO2 VOC NOX 9 The BART limits for power boiler 25 approved in 2012 were 0.07 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/mmBtu) for PM, 0.40 lb/mmBtu PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 2002 2014 104.56 30.16 320.76 12.54 58.35 Percent reductions 27.00 10.90 49.43 4.11 31.13 on a rolling 30 day average for NOX and 0.44 lb/ mmBtu for SO2. E:\FR\FM\27AUP1.SGM 27AUP1 74 64 85 67 47 43574 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1—EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN MARYLAND BY SECTOR IN 1,000 TONS PER YEAR (tpy)—Continued Sector Pollutant On-Road .............................................................................................................. Area ..................................................................................................................... To assess emissions reductions from air pollution control measures being implemented between the baseline period and 2018, MANE–VU developed emissions projections for 2018 for the first round of regional haze SIPs. Section 4 of Maryland’s 2017 progress report details emission trends from 2002 to 2014 and compares the trends to MANE–VU’s projections of 2018 inventories that were included in Maryland’s 2012 regional haze SIP. Maryland asserts in its 2017 progress report and EPA finds that emissions of SO2, NOX, VOC and PM2.5 for all sectors show a downward trend from 2002 through 2014. The 2014 NEI data shows SO2, VOC and PM2.5 emissions significantly below the projected 2018 totals in all categories. NOX emissions declined steeply between 2002 and 2014 largely due to point source and on-road emission reductions. Maryland states in the 2017 progress report that the overall reductions in all pollutants and downward trends far outweigh minimal increases in any sector in years between the baseline and 2018, and the increases do not inhibit the State’s ability to improve visibility, reduce emissions of NOX and SO2, and continue to make progress toward the overall regional haze goals. Section 4 of Maryland’s 2017 progress report also analyzes emissions in the MANE–VU region. Overall hazeimpacting emissions have declined and PM2.5 SO2 VOC NOX PM2.5 SO2 VOC NOX PM2.5 SO2 VOC 2002 4.54 16.65 56.73 167.38 5.79 4.96 65.77 12.79 16.48 11.12 120.08 are projected to continue to decline. Maryland concludes that the general decline in pollutants in the region indicate that changes in anthropogenic emissions have not and will not impede progress to improving visibility or Class I areas meeting their RPGs. EPA finds Maryland has adequately addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) relating to emission reductions and emission trends. Maryland detailed the SO2 and NOX reductions in Maryland from the 2002 regional haze baseline to 2014, the most recently available year of data at the time of the development of Maryland’s 2017 progress report, discussed overall emission trends for all visibilityimpacting pollutants, and discussed the implementation of regional haze SIP measures including BART. EPA agrees with Maryland’s conclusion that it is reasonable to conclude anthropogenic emissions will not impede progress to improving visibility in the region given the large overall reductions in pollutant emissions, particularly in SO2 emissions in the State and in the Mid-Atlantic region. The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) also require states with Class I areas within their borders to provide information on current visibility conditions and the difference between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions expressed Percent reductions 2014 2.58 4.47 27.61 61.64 2.15 0.52 30.27 12.64 11.77 5.94 47.10 43 73 51 63 63 90 54 1 29 47 61 in terms of five-year averages of those annual values. Maryland does not have any Class I areas; however, the 2017 progress report provided visibility condition data to support the assessment that the regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable other states to meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by Maryland. Seven Class I areas in the MANE–VU and Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) 10 are impacted by sulfate emissions from Maryland’s sources, as was stated in the State’s 2012 regional haze SIP submission which EPA approved in July 2012.11 77 FR 39938. The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring program provides data on the air pollutants that contribute to regional haze. Maryland’s 2017 progress report included IMPROVE visibility data for each Class I area in the region which is impacted by Maryland sources and addresses the progress from the baseline 2000–2004 five-year average visibility to the 2011– 2015 five-year average visibility for all affected Class I areas. Table 2 shows IMPROVE visibility data and shows the progress from the baseline period to the most recent averaging period and the RPG for each Class I area. TABLE 2—OBSERVED VISIBILITY VS. REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS 2000–2004 5-year average Class I area IMPROVE site 2011–2015 5-year average Met 2018 RPG already? 2018 RPG amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1 20% Haziest Days Acadia National Park ....................................................................................... Brigantine Wilderness ...................................................................................... 10 Maryland was identified as influencing the visibility impairment of the following Class I areas: Acadia National Park, Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, and Lye Brook Wilderness Area as well as the Dolly Sods Wilderness, Otter Creek Wilderness, and Shenandoah National Park. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Aug 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 22.9 29.0 11 VISTAS is a collaborative effort of state governments, tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the Southeastern United States. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 17.4 22.6 Yes Yes 19.4 25.1 Member States and Tribes include: the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia and the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians. E:\FR\FM\27AUP1.SGM 27AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43575 TABLE 2—OBSERVED VISIBILITY VS. REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS—Continued 2000–2004 5-year average Class I area IMPROVE site Great Gulf/Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness ..................................... Lye Brook Wilderness ...................................................................................... Moosehorn Wilderness/Roosevelt Campobello International Park ................. Dolly Sods Wilderness/Otter Creek 12 ............................................................. Shenandoah National Park .............................................................................. 2011–2015 5-year average Met 2018 RPG already? 2018 RPG 22.8 24.4 21.7 29.5 29.3 16.4 18.0 16.8 21.2 20.7 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 19.1 20.9 19.0 21.7 21.9 8.8 14.3 7.7 6.4 9.2 12.3 10.9 6.9 12.0 5.7 5.3 6.9 8.2 7.9 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8.3 14.3 7.2 5.5 8.6 11.1 8.7 20% Clearest Days amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1 Acadia National Park ....................................................................................... Brigantine Wilderness ...................................................................................... Great Gulf/Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness ..................................... Lye Brook Wilderness ...................................................................................... Moosehorn Wilderness/Roosevelt Campobello International Park ................. Dolly Sods Wilderness ..................................................................................... Shenandoah National Park .............................................................................. EPA notes the substantial progress made in the IMPOVE visibility data, as the Class I areas affected by emissions from Maryland have already achieved and surpassed the 2018 RPGs set in the first regional haze SIPs in the MidAtlantic and Northeast regions. Class I areas affected by emissions from Maryland have current visibility conditions better than baseline conditions and better than RPGs. EPA finds Maryland provided the required information regarding visibility conditions and implementation of all measures included in the State’s regional haze SIP to meet the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g), specifically providing baseline visibility conditions (2000–2004), current conditions based on the most recently available IMPROVE monitoring data (2011–2015), and an assessment of the change in visibility impairment at its Class I areas. As stated, Maryland does not have any Class I areas; therefore, Maryland is not required to monitor for visibilityimpairing pollutants. Maryland’s visibility monitoring strategy relies upon Class I areas’ participation in the IMPROVE network; however, Maryland stated that it does intend to maintain the IMPROVE site at Frostburg Reservoir. EPA finds Maryland has adequately addressed the requirements for a monitoring strategy for regional haze and finds no further modifications to the monitoring strategy are necessary. In its 2017 progress report, Maryland concludes the elements and strategies relied on in its regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable neighboring states to meet all established RPGs. As shown in 12 The West Virginia 5-year progress report submittal states that the IMPROVE monitor in Dolly Sods is a surrogate for Otter Creek. See 80 FR 32019 (June 5, 2015). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Aug 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 Table 2 above, visibility on least— impaired and most—impaired days from 2000 through 2014 has improved at all Class I areas affected by emissions from Maryland. In addition, all Class I areas impacted by Maryland’s emissions have met their RPGs. EPA therefore finds Maryland has adequately addressed the provisions for its progress report in 40 CFR 51.308(g). B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan In the 2017 progress report, Maryland submitted a negative declaration to EPA regarding the need for additional actions or emission reductions in Maryland beyond those already in its regional haze SIP to address the requirement for a determination of adequacy in 40 CFR 51.308(h). Maryland determined the existing regional haze SIP requires no further substantive revision at this time to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas affected by the State’s sources. The basis for the State’s negative declaration is that visibility has improved at all Class I areas impacted by Maryland’s sources in the MANE–VU and VISTAS regions. In addition, there has been a significant downward trend in emissions of NOX, SO2, VOC, and PM2.5 from the baseline year for Maryland’s regional haze SIP (2002) to the latest emission inventory for Maryland in 2014. In addition, SO2, VOC, and PM2.5 emissions are significantly below the 2018 totals projected in Maryland’s 2012 regional haze SIP submittal. EPA concludes that Maryland has adequately addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) because visibility and emission trends indicate that Class I areas impacted by Maryland’s sources are meeting or exceeding the RPGs for 2018, and expect to continue to meet or exceed the RPGs PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 for 2018. Thus, EPA finds Maryland’s negative declaration (i.e., that the existing regional haze SIP requires no further substantive revision to achieve goals for visibility improvement and emission reductions) reasonable and in accordance with requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(h). III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve Maryland’s 2017 progress report, submitted on August 9, 2017, as meeting the applicable CAA requirements in section 110 and meeting regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h). IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • 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.); E:\FR\FM\27AUP1.SGM 27AUP1 43576 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this proposed rule to approve Maryland’s 2017 progress report does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: August 15, 2018. Cosmo Servidio, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. 2018–18526 Filed 8–24–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Aug 24, 2018 Jkt 244001 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0133; FRL–9982– 76—Region 9] Air Plan Revisions; California; Technical Amendments Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to delete various local rules from the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) that were approved in error. These rules include general nuisance provisions, certain federal performance requirements, hearing board procedures, variance provisions, and local fee provisions. The EPA has determined that the continued presence of these rules in the SIP is potentially confusing and thus problematic for affected sources, the state, local agencies, and the EPA. The intended effect of this proposal is to delete these rules to make the SIP consistent with the Clean Air Act. The EPA is also proposing to make certain other corrections to address errors made in previous actions taken by the EPA on California SIP revisions. DATES: Any comments must arrive by September 26, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– OAR–2018–0133 at http:// www.regulations.gov, or via email to Kevin Gong, at gong.kevin@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 3073, gong.kevin@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. Table of Contents I. Why is the EPA proposing to correct the SIP? II. What is the EPA’s authority to correct errors in SIP rulemakings? III. Which rules are proposed for deletion? IV. What other corrections is the EPA proposing to make? V. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment VI. Incorporation by Reference VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Why is the EPA proposing to correct the SIP? The Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) was first enacted in 1970. In the 1970s and early 1980s, thousands of state and local agency regulations were submitted to the EPA for incorporation into the SIP to fulfill the new federal requirements. In many cases, states submitted entire regulatory air pollution programs, including many elements not required by the Act. Due to time and resource constraints, the EPA’s review of these submittals focused primarily on the new substantive requirements, and we approved many other elements into the SIP with minimal review. We now recognize that many of these elements were not appropriate for approval into the SIP. In general, these elements are appropriate for state and local agencies to adopt and implement, but it is not necessary or appropriate to make them federally enforceable by incorporating them into the applicable SIP. These include: A. Rules that prohibit emissions causing general nuisance or annoyance in the community.1 Such rules address local issues but have essentially no connection to the purposes for which SIPs are developed and approved, namely the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 1 An example of such a rule is as follows: A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. E:\FR\FM\27AUP1.SGM 27AUP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43571-43576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18526]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0598; FRL-9982-85--Region 3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maryland; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of Maryland. Maryland's SIP revision, the Regional Haze Five-Year 
Progress Report, addresses Clean Air Act (CAA) provisions that require 
the State to submit periodic reports addressing reasonable progress 
goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and to make a determination 
of the adequacy of

[[Page 43572]]

the State's existing regional haze SIP. Maryland's progress report 
notes that the State has implemented the measures that are specified in 
the regional haze SIP which were due to be in place by the date of the 
progress report. The progress report also notes that visibility in 
federal Class I areas that may have been affected by emissions from 
Maryland is improving and that these Class I areas have already met the 
applicable RPGs for 2018. EPA is proposing approval of Maryland's 
progress report and its determination that the State's regional haze 
SIP is adequate to meet these RPGs for the first implementation period, 
which extends through 2018, and requires no substantive revision. This 
action is being taken under the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 26, 
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2017-0598 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to 
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person 
identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section. For the 
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Trouba, (215) 814-2023, or by 
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a 
SIP revision that evaluates progress towards visibility improvement in 
the first implementation period, including progress towards the RPGs 
for each mandatory Class I federal area \1\ (Class I area) within the 
state and in each Class I area outside the state which may be affected 
by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the 
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the same 
time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of the 
adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP. The progress report 
SIP for the first planning period is due five years after submittal of 
the initial regional haze SIP. On February 13, 2012, Maryland submitted 
the State's first regional haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 
51.308.\2\ On August 9, 2017, Maryland, through the Maryland Department 
of the Environment (MDE), submitted a progress report, as a revision to 
its SIP, which detailed the progress made in the first planning period 
toward implementation of the Long-Term Strategy (LTS) outlined in the 
2012 regional haze SIP, the visibility improvement measured at Class I 
areas affected by emissions from Maryland, and a determination of the 
adequacy of the State's existing regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). 
See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
    \2\ On July 6, 2012 (77 FR 39938), EPA approved Maryland's 
regional haze SIP submittal addressing the requirements of the first 
implementation period for regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    Maryland's regional haze progress report SIP submittal (2017 
progress report) addresses the elements for progress reports required 
under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and includes a determination 
as required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) that the State's existing regional haze 
SIP requires no substantive revision to achieve the established 
regional haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 
2018. This section summarizes Maryland's 2017 progress report and EPA's 
analysis and proposed approval of Maryland's submittal.

A. Regional Haze Progress Report

    As required in 40 CFR 51.308(g), Maryland's 2017 progress report 
evaluated the status of all measures included in the State's 2012 
regional haze SIP for achieving RPGs for affected Class I areas. 
Through consultation, states in the Mid Atlantic/Northeast Visibility 
Union (MANE-VU),\3\ including Maryland, were requested to adopt and 
implement control strategies to assure reasonable progress towards 
improvement of visibility in the MANE-VU Class I areas. These 
strategies are commonly referred to as the MANE-VU ``Ask.'' The MANE-VU 
``Ask'' includes: (1) 90% or more reduction in sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) emissions at 167 electric generating unit (EGU) 
``stacks'' identified by MANE-VU (or comparable alternative measures), 
(2) timely implementation of best available retrofit technology (BART) 
\4\ requirements, (3) lower sulfur fuel oil (with limits specified for 
each state), and (4) continued evaluation of other control measures.\5\ 
The strategies from the ``Ask'' are the measures that Maryland included 
in the 2012 regional haze SIP and which are addressed in the 2017 
progress report. Maryland addressed the measures listed in the 2012 
regional haze SIP through implementing the state-wide Healthy Air Act 
(HAA),\6\ implementing BART or alternatives to BART, adopting a low-
sulfur fuel oil regulation into COMAR 03.03.05.04, and evaluating other 
control methods to reduce SO2 and nitrogen oxides 
(NOX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ MANE-VU was formed by the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern 
states, tribes, and federal agencies to coordinate regional haze 
planning activities for the region to meet requirements in the CAA 
and federal regional haze regulations.
    \4\ BART eligible sources are those sources which have the 
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air 
pollutant, were put in place between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 
1977, and whose operations fall within one or more of 26 
specifically listed source categories.
    \5\ The MANE-VU ``Ask'' was structured around the finding that 
SO2 emissions were the dominate visibility impairing 
pollutant at the Northeastern Class I areas and that EGUs comprised 
the largest SO2 emission sector.
    \6\ The HAA, codified at COMAR 26.11.27, was effective as of 
July 16, 2007 and was approved by EPA into the Maryland SIP on 
September 4, 2008 (73 FR 51599).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the MANE-VU ``Ask'' to achieve 90% or more reduction 
in SO2 emissions at 167 EGU ``stacks,'' Maryland 
demonstrates, in the 2017 progress report, that the HAA has been 
implemented and has provided significant reductions in SO2 
and NOX from coal-fired EGUs, including several BART-
eligible units. At the BART eligible EGUs, the existing controls were 
considered BART for NOX, SO2, and particulate 
matter (PM). The HAA addressed 15 coal-fired EGUs in the state, 
including the twelve identified within the ``Ask's'' 167 stacks and all 
seven of the BART-eligible EGUs in the state.\7\ The HAA established 
tonnage

[[Page 43573]]

caps for emissions of NOX and SO2 from 15 coal-
fired EGUs, 13 of which are still operating. The HAA's annual 
SO2 caps were implemented in two phases, first in 2010 and 
then in 2013. The annual NOX caps were implemented in 2009 
and 2012. In the 2017 progress report, Maryland reported that 
NOX emissions were reduced by 89% from a 2002 baseline from 
these EGUs and SO2 emissions from these EGUs were reduced by 
269,444 tons per year from the 2002 baseline, a 92% reduction from 2002 
to 2015. Maryland asserts that the SO2 and NOX 
emissions reductions under the HAA exceeded reductions that would have 
been achieved through BART controls alone at the EGUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ R. Paul Smith Units 3 & 4 have shut down since the approval 
of Maryland's regional haze SIP in 2012. The HAA originally 
addressed 15 units, but currently addresses 13 active EGUs in the 
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2017 progress report also addressed implementation of BART and 
alternatives to BART \8\ at Maryland's two non-EGU BART eligible source 
specific units--Holcim Cement and Verso Luke Paper. In the BART 
analysis for Holcim's Portland cement kiln in Hagerstown, Maryland, the 
State determined and EPA approved the addition of selective non-
catalytic reduction (SNCR) as BART for PM and NOX and the 
previously installed controls as BART for SO2. See 77 FR 
11827 (February 28, 2012). The SIP-approved regulation, COMAR 26.11.30, 
pertaining to Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for the 
2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), establishes 
more stringent NOX limits for Portland Cement Plants in the 
State, including Holcim Cement. 83 FR 13192 (March 28, 2018). As a 
result of the RACT requirements, Holcim upgraded its equipment in 2016 
from a long-dry kiln to a pre-heater/pre-calciner kiln and installed a 
SNCR addressing BART requirements for NOX and PM. Holcim is 
required to meet a limit of 2.4 pounds (lbs) of NOX per ton 
of clinker on a 30-day rolling average effective April 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The requirements for alternative measures are established at 
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In June 2012, EPA approved BART emission limits for power boiler 
25, a BART subject source, at the Verso Luke Paper Mill. 77 FR 39938 
(June 13, 2012). In July 2017, EPA removed the previously approved BART 
requirements for SO2 and NOX from power boiler 25 
(No. 25) and replaced them with new, alternative emission requirements 
as BART.\9\ EPA established an annual SO2 cap for power 
boiler 25 and approved alternative BART emission limits for 
SO2 and NOX for power boiler 24 (No. 24): (1) A 
new BART emission limit of 0.28 pounds per million British thermal 
units (lbs/mmBtu), measured as an hourly average for SO2; 
and (2) a new BART emission limit of 0.4 lb/mmBtu, measured on a 30-day 
rolling average for NOX. 82 FR 35451 (July 31, 2017). The 
BART PM limit on power boiler No. 25 remains at 0.07 lb/MMBtu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The BART limits for power boiler 25 approved in 2012 were 
0.07 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/mmBtu) for PM, 
0.40 lb/mmBtu on a rolling 30 day average for NOX and 
0.44 lb/mmBtu for SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Included in the MANE-VU ``Ask'' and as a measure in the State's 
2012 regional haze SIP was a low-sulfur oil strategy. In 2014, Maryland 
adopted amendments to COMAR 03.03.05.04, ``Specifications for No. 1 and 
No. 2 Fuel Oil.'' The amendments, effective October 13, 2014, lowered 
the maximum allowable amount of sulfur in #1 and #2 fuel oil in two 
stages, from 3,000 to 2,000 parts per million (ppm) of sulfur in 2014, 
and then from 2,000 to 500 ppm of sulfur in 2016. While this strategy 
does not meet the exact specifications or timeline of the ``Ask,'' 
MANE-VU left an option for flexibility in reducing SO2 
emissions by implementing other strategies. In the 2012 regional haze 
SIP, Maryland projected that the reductions achieved by implementing 
the HAA would greatly exceed projected reductions from fully 
implementing the ``Ask's'' low-sulfur fuel oil strategy. Maryland 
stated it intends to submit this regulation, COMAR 03.03.05.04, for 
future SIP approval.
    In the 2017 progress report, Maryland also mentions EPA approved 
for the Maryland SIP amendments adopted into COMAR 26.11.38, ``Control 
of NOX emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Generating 
Units,'' which addresses the 2012 regional haze SIP measure to evaluate 
other control methods to reduce SO2 and NOX. 82 
FR 24546 (June 29, 2017). For 13 coal-fired EGUs in the state, Maryland 
asserts this regulation establishes a system-wide emissions rate of 
0.15 lbs/mmBtu on a 30-day rolling average during the ozone season for 
NOX emissions at all coal-burning EGUs owned by the same 
company. An additional requirement in COMAR 26.11.38 to optimize 
controls is monitored by compliance with a 24-hour block emissions 
limit during ozone season for each coal-burning EGU. Although COMAR 
26.11.38 is specifically designed to reduce ozone impacts by reducing 
NOX emissions, Maryland stated in the 2017 progress report 
that it believes that this regulation benefits visibility in nearby 
Class I areas because NOX is a visibility impairing 
pollutant as well as a precursor to ozone.
    EPA finds that Maryland's analysis in its 2017 progress report 
adequately addresses the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g), 
as the State demonstrated the implementation of control measures in the 
Maryland regional haze SIP and in the MANE-VU ``Ask.''
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) also require the state to 
provide analysis of emissions trends of visibility-impairing pollutants 
from the state's sources by type or category over the past five years 
based on the most recent updated emissions inventory. In Section 4 of 
the 2017 progress report, Maryland provided an assessment of the 
following visibility impairing pollutants: SO2, 
NOX, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and fine particulate 
matter (PM2.5) by category. MANE-VU and Maryland determined 
that SO2 emissions are the most significant pollutant 
impacting regional haze in MANE-VU Class I areas, therefore, the bulk 
of visibility improvement was expected to result from reductions in 
SO2 emissions from sources inside and outside of the State. 
The emissions reductions data in Table 1 demonstrates that 
NOX, SO2, VOC, and PM2.5 emissions 
have decreased from Maryland's baseline emissions in 2002 to 2014, the 
last year for which a comprehensive national emission inventory (NEI) 
is available.

                Table 1--Emissions Reductions in Maryland by Sector in 1,000 Tons per Year (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Percent
                Sector                          Pollutant              2002            2014         reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.................................  NOX                               104.56           27.00              74
                                        PM2.5                              30.16           10.90              64
                                        SO2                               320.76           49.43              85
                                        VOC                                12.54            4.11              67
Non-Road..............................  NOX                                58.35           31.13              47

[[Page 43574]]

 
                                        PM2.5                               4.54            2.58              43
                                        SO2                                16.65            4.47              73
                                        VOC                                56.73           27.61              51
On-Road...............................  NOX                               167.38           61.64              63
                                        PM2.5                               5.79            2.15              63
                                        SO2                                 4.96            0.52              90
                                        VOC                                65.77           30.27              54
Area..................................  NOX                                12.79           12.64               1
                                        PM2.5                              16.48           11.77              29
                                        SO2                                11.12            5.94              47
                                        VOC                               120.08           47.10              61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess emissions reductions from air pollution control measures 
being implemented between the baseline period and 2018, MANE-VU 
developed emissions projections for 2018 for the first round of 
regional haze SIPs. Section 4 of Maryland's 2017 progress report 
details emission trends from 2002 to 2014 and compares the trends to 
MANE-VU's projections of 2018 inventories that were included in 
Maryland's 2012 regional haze SIP. Maryland asserts in its 2017 
progress report and EPA finds that emissions of SO2, 
NOX, VOC and PM2.5 for all sectors show a 
downward trend from 2002 through 2014. The 2014 NEI data shows 
SO2, VOC and PM2.5 emissions significantly below 
the projected 2018 totals in all categories. NOX emissions 
declined steeply between 2002 and 2014 largely due to point source and 
on-road emission reductions. Maryland states in the 2017 progress 
report that the overall reductions in all pollutants and downward 
trends far outweigh minimal increases in any sector in years between 
the baseline and 2018, and the increases do not inhibit the State's 
ability to improve visibility, reduce emissions of NOX and 
SO2, and continue to make progress toward the overall 
regional haze goals. Section 4 of Maryland's 2017 progress report also 
analyzes emissions in the MANE-VU region. Overall haze-impacting 
emissions have declined and are projected to continue to decline. 
Maryland concludes that the general decline in pollutants in the region 
indicate that changes in anthropogenic emissions have not and will not 
impede progress to improving visibility or Class I areas meeting their 
RPGs.
    EPA finds Maryland has adequately addressed the provisions under 40 
CFR 51.308(g) relating to emission reductions and emission trends. 
Maryland detailed the SO2 and NOX reductions in 
Maryland from the 2002 regional haze baseline to 2014, the most 
recently available year of data at the time of the development of 
Maryland's 2017 progress report, discussed overall emission trends for 
all visibility-impacting pollutants, and discussed the implementation 
of regional haze SIP measures including BART. EPA agrees with 
Maryland's conclusion that it is reasonable to conclude anthropogenic 
emissions will not impede progress to improving visibility in the 
region given the large overall reductions in pollutant emissions, 
particularly in SO2 emissions in the State and in the Mid-
Atlantic region.
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) also require states with 
Class I areas within their borders to provide information on current 
visibility conditions and the difference between current visibility 
conditions and baseline visibility conditions expressed in terms of 
five-year averages of those annual values. Maryland does not have any 
Class I areas; however, the 2017 progress report provided visibility 
condition data to support the assessment that the regional haze SIP is 
sufficient to enable other states to meet the RPGs for Class I areas 
affected by Maryland.
    Seven Class I areas in the MANE-VU and Visibility Improvement State 
and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) Regional Planning 
Organizations (RPOs) \10\ are impacted by sulfate emissions from 
Maryland's sources, as was stated in the State's 2012 regional haze SIP 
submission which EPA approved in July 2012.\11\ 77 FR 39938. The 
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 
monitoring program provides data on the air pollutants that contribute 
to regional haze. Maryland's 2017 progress report included IMPROVE 
visibility data for each Class I area in the region which is impacted 
by Maryland sources and addresses the progress from the baseline 2000-
2004 five-year average visibility to the 2011-2015 five-year average 
visibility for all affected Class I areas. Table 2 shows IMPROVE 
visibility data and shows the progress from the baseline period to the 
most recent averaging period and the RPG for each Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Maryland was identified as influencing the visibility 
impairment of the following Class I areas: Acadia National Park, 
Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, and Lye Brook Wilderness Area 
as well as the Dolly Sods Wilderness, Otter Creek Wilderness, and 
Shenandoah National Park.
    \11\ VISTAS is a collaborative effort of state governments, 
tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to 
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of 
regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the 
Southeastern United States. Member States and Tribes include: the 
States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia and 
the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.

                           Table 2--Observed Visibility vs. Reasonable Progress Goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2000-2004 5-    2011-2015 5-    Met 2018 RPG
            Class I area IMPROVE site              year  average   year  average     already?        2018 RPG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                20% Haziest Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia National Park............................            22.9            17.4             Yes            19.4
Brigantine Wilderness...........................            29.0            22.6             Yes            25.1

[[Page 43575]]

 
Great Gulf/Presidential Range-Dry River                     22.8            16.4             Yes            19.1
 Wilderness.....................................
Lye Brook Wilderness............................            24.4            18.0             Yes            20.9
Moosehorn Wilderness/Roosevelt Campobello                   21.7            16.8             Yes            19.0
 International Park.............................
Dolly Sods Wilderness/Otter Creek \12\..........            29.5            21.2             Yes            21.7
Shenandoah National Park........................            29.3            20.7             Yes            21.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                20% Clearest Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia National Park............................             8.8             6.9             Yes             8.3
Brigantine Wilderness...........................            14.3            12.0             Yes            14.3
Great Gulf/Presidential Range-Dry River                      7.7             5.7             Yes             7.2
 Wilderness.....................................
Lye Brook Wilderness............................             6.4             5.3             Yes             5.5
Moosehorn Wilderness/Roosevelt Campobello                    9.2             6.9             Yes             8.6
 International Park.............................
Dolly Sods Wilderness...........................            12.3             8.2             Yes            11.1
Shenandoah National Park........................            10.9             7.9             Yes             8.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes the substantial progress made in the IMPOVE visibility 
data, as the Class I areas affected by emissions from Maryland have 
already achieved and surpassed the 2018 RPGs set in the first regional 
haze SIPs in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions. Class I areas 
affected by emissions from Maryland have current visibility conditions 
better than baseline conditions and better than RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The West Virginia 5-year progress report submittal states 
that the IMPROVE monitor in Dolly Sods is a surrogate for Otter 
Creek. See 80 FR 32019 (June 5, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA finds Maryland provided the required information regarding 
visibility conditions and implementation of all measures included in 
the State's regional haze SIP to meet the requirements under 40 CFR 
51.308(g), specifically providing baseline visibility conditions (2000-
2004), current conditions based on the most recently available IMPROVE 
monitoring data (2011-2015), and an assessment of the change in 
visibility impairment at its Class I areas.
    As stated, Maryland does not have any Class I areas; therefore, 
Maryland is not required to monitor for visibility-impairing 
pollutants. Maryland's visibility monitoring strategy relies upon Class 
I areas' participation in the IMPROVE network; however, Maryland stated 
that it does intend to maintain the IMPROVE site at Frostburg 
Reservoir. EPA finds Maryland has adequately addressed the requirements 
for a monitoring strategy for regional haze and finds no further 
modifications to the monitoring strategy are necessary.
    In its 2017 progress report, Maryland concludes the elements and 
strategies relied on in its regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable 
neighboring states to meet all established RPGs. As shown in Table 2 
above, visibility on least--impaired and most--impaired days from 2000 
through 2014 has improved at all Class I areas affected by emissions 
from Maryland. In addition, all Class I areas impacted by Maryland's 
emissions have met their RPGs. EPA therefore finds Maryland has 
adequately addressed the provisions for its progress report in 40 CFR 
51.308(g).

B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan

    In the 2017 progress report, Maryland submitted a negative 
declaration to EPA regarding the need for additional actions or 
emission reductions in Maryland beyond those already in its regional 
haze SIP to address the requirement for a determination of adequacy in 
40 CFR 51.308(h). Maryland determined the existing regional haze SIP 
requires no further substantive revision at this time to achieve the 
RPGs for Class I areas affected by the State's sources. The basis for 
the State's negative declaration is that visibility has improved at all 
Class I areas impacted by Maryland's sources in the MANE-VU and VISTAS 
regions. In addition, there has been a significant downward trend in 
emissions of NOX, SO2, VOC, and PM2.5 
from the baseline year for Maryland's regional haze SIP (2002) to the 
latest emission inventory for Maryland in 2014. In addition, 
SO2, VOC, and PM2.5 emissions are significantly 
below the 2018 totals projected in Maryland's 2012 regional haze SIP 
submittal.
    EPA concludes that Maryland has adequately addressed the provisions 
under 40 CFR 51.308(h) because visibility and emission trends indicate 
that Class I areas impacted by Maryland's sources are meeting or 
exceeding the RPGs for 2018, and expect to continue to meet or exceed 
the RPGs for 2018. Thus, EPA finds Maryland's negative declaration 
(i.e., that the existing regional haze SIP requires no further 
substantive revision to achieve goals for visibility improvement and 
emission reductions) reasonable and in accordance with requirements in 
40 CFR 51.308(h).

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Maryland's 2017 progress report, 
submitted on August 9, 2017, as meeting the applicable CAA requirements 
in section 110 and meeting regional haze requirements set forth in 40 
CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     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.);

[[Page 43576]]

     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule to approve Maryland's 2017 progress 
report does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not 
approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes 
that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments 
or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: August 15, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-18526 Filed 8-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P