Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report, 43571-43576 [2018-18526]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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 https://
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
https://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 https://
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
https://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 https://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 https://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
