[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36343-36348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11643]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0042; FRL-10009-54-Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
portions of a state implementation plan (SIP) submittal from the State
of Maryland. The submittal pertains to the basic program elements
referred to as infrastructure requirements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or
standard). EPA is approving certain elements of the infrastructure SIP
submittal in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 16, 2020.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0042. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.
[[Page 36344]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2308. Ms. Powers can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On May 8, 2019 (84 FR 20070), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Maryland. In the NPRM, EPA proposed
approval of portions of Maryland's infrastructure SIP submittal for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. The formal SIP revision (16-11) was
submitted by Maryland on August 17, 2016.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis
On August 17, 2016, Maryland, through the Maryland Department of
the Environment (MDE) formally submitted a SIP revision to satisfy
certain infrastructure requirements of section 110(a) of the CAA for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The SIP submittal addressed the
following infrastructure elements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS:
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), D(ii), (E),
(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). As explained in the NPRM, EPA is
not taking action in this rulemaking related to Maryland's submittal
for the interstate transport requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
EPA is taking action on Maryland's 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
infrastructure submission related to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements in a separate rulemaking.
The NPRM and the Technical Support Document (TSD) provided EPA's
review and rationale for proposing approval of portions of Maryland's
submittal and will not be restated here. The TSD is available online at
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0042.
III. Public Comments and EPA's Responses
One anonymous commenter provided comments in response to the May 8,
2019 proposed approval. EPA's responses to the comments are provided in
this document. The full text of the comment is in the docket for this
final rule.
Comment 1: The commenter questions the validity of EPA's statement
in the TSD under CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) that Maryland maintains and
operates a network of ambient monitors throughout the State to measure
ambient air quality levels and to determine compliance with the NAAQS,
in light of the requirements under the Data Requirements Rule (DRR) for
SO2. The commenter believes that section 110(a)(2)(B) should
be disapproved until SO2 monitors are installed at Brandon
Shores, CP Crane, Chalk Point, Herbert Wagner, Luke Paper (Luke) and
Morgantown, and that the data should be captured and reported to EPA
and the public. The commenter also states that EPA has failed to take
the DRR into consideration in its determination that section
110(a)(2)(G) is approvable, despite its finding that Maryland has shown
under section 110(a)(2)(B) that it has the ability and authority to
perform SO2 air quality monitoring in accordance with EPA's
requirements. The commenter believes that installation of monitors at
the six sources in Maryland are required under the DRR so that ambient
SO2 levels near those sources can be evaluated for
comparison to significant harm levels for SO2, and that EPA
should not approve section 110(a)(2)(B) and (G) until Maryland installs
more SO2 monitors and reports the monitored data to EPA and
the public.
Response 1: The commenter refers to the section 110(a)(2)(G)
requirement in the context of SO2 air quality monitoring and
the DRR. Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires that state implementation plans
have emergency authority comparable to that contained in section 303 of
the CAA, and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. In
the proposed rule for this action, the technical support document lays
out EPA's rationale for proposing approval of Maryland's submittal for
section 110(a)(2)(G). The SIP-approved Maryland regulations COMAR
26.11.05.03 and 26.11.05.04 establish criteria for addressing emergency
episodes of SO2 in the State. However, because the comment
pertains to air quality monitoring, EPA believes that the commenter
mistakenly cited to section 110(a)(2)(G) and instead meant to cite to
the monitoring requirements under section 110(a)(2)(F), which pertain
to the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the
implementation of stationary source monitoring, periodic reports on
emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and correlation
of the reports with any emissions limitations or standards. The section
110(a)(2)(F) requirement is discussed later in this response. EPA
agrees that the six sources identified by the commenter were listed by
the State under the DRR requirements, 40 CFR part 51, subpart BB, for
characterization of SO2 emissions,1 2 but EPA
disagrees that the DRR requires installation of SO2 monitors
at all six of the sources. Under the DRR, states were required to
submit a list to EPA that identified all sources within the state
having SO2 emissions that exceeded a 2,000 tons per year
(tpy) annual threshold during the most recent year for which emissions
data for that source was available, plus any additional sources
identified by the air agency or by EPA as also warranting air quality
characterization. For each of the listed sources, a state was required
to indicate by July 1, 2016, whether air quality around the source
would be characterized through ambient monitoring or through air
quality modeling. See 40 CFR 51.1203(b). Alternatively, the state could
indicate that documentation would be provided by January 13, 2017, that
the listed source was subject to federally-enforceable and in effect
emission limit(s) below 2,000 tpy or a shutdown. If the state chose to
install new SO2 monitor(s), the state was required to
include information about the new monitors in the annual monitoring
network plan (AMNP) by July 1, 2016, and to ensure that the new
monitor(s) were operational by January 1, 2017. If the state chose to
model a source, the modeling protocol was required to be submitted by
July 1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter dated January 5, 2016 from Larry Hogan, Maryland
Governor to Shawn Garvin, Regional Administrator recommending
sources in Maryland subject to the DRR, available in the docket for
this rulemaking action or at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/md.pdf.
\2\ Letter dated March 16, 2016 from Shawn Garvin, Regional
Administrator to Benjamin H. Grumbles, Maryland Secretary, agreeing
with the Maryland recommendation, available in the docket for this
rulemaking action, or at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/md-response.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 30, 2016, Maryland submitted a letter notifying EPA of the
State's selected methods for characterizing the SO2
emissions for the six sources named by the commenter.\3\ The letter
identified modeling as the method for characterizing five of the
sources, and monitoring for characterizing the Luke facility.\4\
[[Page 36345]]
Maryland's 2016 AMNP includes the following narrative of the chosen
option to characterize SO2 concentrations around each of
these sources, as follows: ``This final rule gives air agencies the
flexibility to characterize air quality using either modeling of actual
source emissions or using appropriately sited ambient air quality
monitors. At the time of this publication, all sources except Verso
Luke Mill are expected to model their emissions. Verso Luke Mill
submitted a draft monitoring plan to MDE in March 2016. When Verso Luke
Mill has submitted a complete package of material describing their
proposed monitoring plan, an addendum to this Network Plan will be
published and made available for a separate 30-day public comment
period. The same July 2016 submission deadline to EPA will apply to
this addendum.'' \5\ This language in the AMNP notes that the DRR
provides Maryland the flexibility to choose between modeling and
monitoring for each source subject to the requirements of the DRR,
which Maryland exercised in its decision to use air quality modeling to
characterize five sources' SO2 emissions and monitoring to
characterize Luke's SO2 emissions. The DRR does not mandate
installation of SO2 monitors at the sources Maryland chose
to characterize through air quality modeling. To meet the modeling
pathway for Chalk Point and Morgantown Generating Stations, Maryland
submitted a modeling analysis for the area surrounding each source on
December 19, 2016, prior to the January 13, 2017 submission date
required by the DRR. Before the modeling analysis was submitted to EPA,
a modeling protocol was developed to outline the procedures to follow
for the modeling analysis. To meet the monitoring pathway for Luke in
Allegany County, Maryland installed three monitors to characterize the
SO2 emissions around Luke, including one monitor in West
Virginia. The new monitors began operation on January 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/maryland_source_characterization.pdf.
\4\ Three of the listed sources (Brandon Shores, CP Crane, and
Herbert A. Wagner) that the State chose the modeling pathway for are
located in an area that EPA designated nonattainment under the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in July 2016 after consideration of all
available modeling, including modeling submitted by the State. See
Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard--
Round 2 (81 FR 45039, July 12, 2016). For the reasons explained in
this response regarding listed sources for which a state chose the
modeling pathway, EPA disagrees that the DRR required monitors to
characterize SO2 emissions around Brandon Shores, CP
Crane, and Herbert A. Wagner.
\5\ The ``publication'' referred to is the AMNP as published in
the Maryland Register. The AMNP lists all six of the sources named
by the commenter, with Luke as the only source to be characterized
by monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also disagrees with the comment that section 110(a)(2)(B) and
110(a)(2)(F) should be disapproved because of a lack of SO2
monitors, which the commenter believes is required under the DRR. As
discussed above, the DRR provides states the option to either model or
monitor SO2 emissions around listed DRR sources, and
Maryland chose to model for certain sources. With this in mind, EPA
found that for SO2, Maryland's monitoring network is
sufficient under section 110(a)(2)(B) to monitor, compile and analyze
data on SO2 ambient data, and Maryland does provide
monitored or modeled data to EPA upon request. The TSD for the NPRM
provides EPA's analysis of how Maryland's submittal met the
requirements for section 110(a)(2)(B) and 110(a)(2)(F). Maryland's
authority to monitor and analyze ambient air quality is found in
sections 2-103(b)(2) and 2-301(a)(1) of the Environment Article,
Annotated Code of Maryland. The ambient air quality standards,
definitions, reference conditions, and methods of measurement have been
approved into the SIP and are found under COMAR 26.11.04.02. Regarding
the validity of Maryland's SO2 monitoring network under
110(a)(2)(B), EPA affirms that Maryland maintains and operates a
network of ambient SO2 monitors throughout the State meeting
the requirements of the DRR and other applicable requirements, to
measure ambient air quality levels and to determine compliance with the
NAAQS. As required by 40 CFR 58.10, Maryland submits an AMNP annually
to EPA that details any modifications to the sampling network. Maryland
also submits a periodic network assessment to EPA every five years to
determine if the network meets the monitoring objectives defined in 40
CFR part 58, appendix D, and to determine whether (1) new sites are
needed, (2) existing sites are no longer needed and can be terminated,
and (3) new technologies are appropriate for inclusion into the
network. As required by 40 CFR 51.320, Maryland submits all ambient air
quality data and associated quality assurance data for SO2
to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in accordance with the schedule
prescribed by EPA in 40 CFR 58.16. The 2016, 2017, and 2018 AMNP plans
are provided in the docket for this rulemaking.\6\ Therefore, the NPRM
proposed to determine that Maryland met the requirements under section
110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The 2016, 2017, and 2018 AMNP Plans were approved by EPA
November 10, 2016, November 17, 2017, and October 26, 2018,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding section 110(a)(2)(F), EPA finds that Maryland's SIP
contains authority meeting the requirements to require sources to
install, maintain and replace equipment necessary to monitor emissions
from sources, the requirements to provide for periodic reports on the
nature and amount of emissions from sources, and correlation of reports
to the standard. Section 2-103 and 2-301 of the Environment Article,
Annotated Code of Maryland, provides the authority for monitoring of
air emissions for sources in the State and for adopting regulations to
control air pollution, including testing, monitoring, record keeping,
and emissions reporting requirements. Under this authority, Maryland
has adopted, and EPA has approved into the Maryland SIP, provisions of
Code of Maryland (COMAR) 26.11--Air Quality that require the
installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the
implementation of other necessary steps by stationary sources for
testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting of emissions. This
SIP-approved requirement of COMAR 26.11 also establishes the authority
needed to require sources to provide for periodic reports on the nature
and amount of emissions from such sources. Also relevant to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) is section .04(B)(4) of Maryland
regulation COMAR 26.11.01--Testing and Monitoring, which requires that
all testing and monitoring reports submitted to MDE under this section
be available for public inspection, and Maryland makes the monitoring
data available to the public in real time at this site: https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Air/AirQualityMonitoring/Pages/index.aspx.
The TSD for the NPRM details EPA's analysis of Maryland's submission
related to section 110(a)(2)(B) and 110(a)(2)(F), and EPA's
determination that the Maryland's submittal meets the requirements for
these sections.
Comment 2: The commenter stated that EPA should provide air quality
data to the public so the public does not have to guess when facilities
are polluting the air, and that monitoring network plans and
modifications to the plans should be made public as well. The commenter
also states that EPA should require monitoring network plans be made
available to the public for comment so the public can litigate based on
unbiased publicly available data.
Response 2: The quality-assured, certified monitoring data
collected by the State is provided to the public. Maryland makes the
monitoring data available to the public in real time at this site:
https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Air/AirQualityMonitoring/Pages/index.aspx. After Maryland submits the certified monitoring data to
EPA, EPA reviews the data, then posts the emissions data to EPA's AQS.
The AQS air monitoring data can be found at this site: https://www.epa.gov/aqs. EPA posts monitoring data and
[[Page 36346]]
summary reports at this site: https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data.
Regarding public notice for the AMNP, EPA regulations at 40 CFR
part 58, subpart B, require among other things that the state provide
the AMNP for public inspection for at least 30 days prior to submission
to EPA. 40 CFR 58.10(a)(1). Maryland did provide a 30-day public
comment period on the 2016 AMNP, therefore, the public does have an
opportunity to comment on Maryland's AMNP at the state level. The
monitors installed to characterize SO2 emissions around the
Luke facility are required to continue in operation to report ambient
data and may not be shut down unless the monitor meets specific
criteria under Sec. 51.1203(c)(3) and 40 CFR part 58. Under 40 CFR
58.10, AMNPs must go through Maryland's public process. Under 40 CFR
58.14, modifications to the SO2 monitoring network outside
of the AMNP require approval by the Regional Administrator of EPA.
Comment 3: The commenter questions why EPA has not yet taken action
on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and also questions EPA's policy of
taking separate, later action on the portion of the Maryland submittal
related to this section. In particular, the commenter notes that EPA
has had the submittal since August 17, 2016, should have taken action
by now, and should not be delaying action for a later date. The
commenter notes that Maryland had until June 2, 2013 to submit this SIP
and that EPA had 18 months after that to take final action on these
SIPs, i.e. December 2, 2014. The commenter states that EPA must take
action on this section as soon as possible to prevent harmful air
pollution from negatively impacting neighboring states like Delaware,
the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia, and
Virginia. The commenter also states that this comment serves as a
notice of intent to sue on EPA's failure to act on this section of the
CAA within the statutory time frame.
Response 3: EPA's approach to reviewing and taking action on
infrastructure SIPs is discussed in numerous past infrastructure
rulemaking actions.\7\ In these past actions, EPA explained an
ambiguity in section 110(a)(1) and (2) with respect to infrastructure
SIPs pertaining to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure
SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act
upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1)
directs states to submit ``a plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA
interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions
separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS.
If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the
infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such
submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.
Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the
individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP
submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire
submission. Therefore, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different
times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure
SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As an example, See Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Infrastructure Requirements for
the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (80 FR 26461, May 8, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is discussed in the guidance issued on September 13, 2013
(2013 Infrastructure Guidance).\8\ The 2013 Infrastructure Guidance
explains that EPA has historically, when reviewing infrastructure SIP
submissions, operated on the basis that the elements and sub-elements
of section 110(a)(2) for a given NAAQS are, for the most part,
severable. EPA intends to continue its practice of acting on
infrastructure SIP elements together or separately, as appropriate,
including in this instance, where EPA is taking separate action on the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of Maryland's submittal.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
\9\ In a separate action on April 22, 2020 (85 FR 22381), EPA
proposed to disapprove the portion of Maryland's August 17, 2016
infrastructure SIP submittal for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related
to interstate transport of emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA acknowledges that it has not met the statutory date for action
on this Maryland submittal. However, this action will discharge EPA's
statutory obligation related to section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the
CAA. With regard to this comment as a notice of intent to sue on the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of the submittal, section 304(a) of
CAA sets forth the circumstances under which a citizen can sue under
the CAA. However, section 304(b) states that no action can be commenced
``prior to 60 days after the plaintiff has given notice of such action
to the Administrator.'' Section 304(b)(2) stipulates that such notice
``shall be given in such manner as the Administrator may prescribe by
regulation.'' The regulations at 40 CFR part 54 require that a notice
of intent to sue be served on the Administrator by certified mail. 40
CFR 54.2(a). Title 40 CFR 54.3 specifies the content of such notice and
requires, among other things, the full name and address of the person
giving notice. So, a citizen intending to file a notice of intent to
sue on EPA's mandatory duty to act on any portion of the Maryland
submittal is required to do so via certified mail directly to
Administrator, which would also need to meet the other requirements
specified in 40 CFR part 54. EPA, therefore, does not consider this
comment as meeting the requirements for notice of a mandatory duty
suit.
Comment 4: The commenter questions EPA's proposed approval of
section 110(a)(2)(E) based on Maryland's staff of 43 people, and that
EPA needs to clarify whether these 43 individuals are working on only
the SO2 SIP or if they also have other work
responsibilities. The commenter believes that EPA should show that
these 43 people are able to handle all their assigned duties. The
commenter also questions EPA's determination that MDE has adequate
funding without an analysis of MDE's revenue and expenses and believes
that EPA should perform a financial audit of MDE to ensure the State
has adequate funding to perform their obligations under the CAA.
Response 4: As stated in the TSD for the NPRM, EPA's evaluation
indicates that the State of Maryland has the staffing and funding
resources to meet SIP obligations under section 110(a)(2)(E).
Maryland's budget and staff level has been consistent over the past
number of years and over these years, Maryland has been able to meet
its statutory commitments, including submission of required air quality
data and annual monitoring network plans. Maryland has an EPA-approved
fee program under CAA title V which is used to support title V program
elements such as permitting, monitoring, testing, inspections, and
enforcement. EPA conducts periodic title V fee and program audits in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Maryland regulation COMAR 26.11.02.19 provides fee schedules and other
relevant fee information regarding title V permits and state permits to
operate. Additionally, MDE receives grant funding annually from EPA
through CAA section 105 to assist the State with the costs of
implementing programs for the prevention and control of air pollution
or implementation of national primary and secondary ambient
[[Page 36347]]
air quality standards. The CAA section 105 grant funding MDE receives
goes through an evaluation process under the requirements of 40 CFR
part 35, subpart A, which call for the State and EPA to jointly
evaluate and report progress and accomplishments under the work plan.
Maryland also has various permit programs that are self-funded as they
apply fees for permit applications. Most of these permit program fees
can be adjusted if the State determines that the fee does not cover the
reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon the permit applications.
In addition to the EPA programs through which funding is received,
MDE's infrastructure SIP submission identifies the organizations that
participate in developing, implementing, and enforcing the EPA-approved
SIP provisions related to a new or revised NAAQS and the associated
resources. Maryland's Environmental Trust Fund, administered by the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), provides Maryland with
annual funding that is used by the State to conduct air quality
modeling, and also funds the Maryland Power Plan Research Program.
Also, the Public Service Commission (PSC) collects application fees
from power plants to fund its regulatory program. Based on a review of
the existing resources, EPA has concluded that Maryland has met the
funding requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E) and has adequate personnel
to implement the SIP.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving Maryland's August 17, 2016 infrastructure SIP
submission which addresses the basic program elements, or portions
thereof, specified in sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA,
necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. EPA is approving Maryland's infrastructure SIP submittal for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS for these elements. As noted previously, EPA
is taking separate action on the portion of the MDE submittal related
to transport i.e., section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Maryland's submittal did
not address section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) permitting program requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), which
pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of the
CAA. States are required to submit those nonattainment area
requirements under a different timeline as statutorily required under
part D of the CAA.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 17, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action approving portions of Maryland's infrastructure SIP
submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS may not be challenged later
in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: May 26, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
Accordingly, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 36348]]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart V--Maryland
0
2. In Sec. 52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
the entry ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1070 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of non-regulatory SIP Applicable State
revision geographic area submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Statewide......... 08/17/16 6/16/20, [insert Sec. 52.1070 is
Infrastructure Requirements Federal Register amended. This action
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. citation]. addresses the
following CAA
elements:
110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C), (D)(i)(II),
D(ii), (E), (F), (G),
(H), (J), (K), (L),
and (M). This action
does not address CAA
sections
110(a)(D)(i)(I) and
110(a)(2)(I), nor does
it address the portion
of section
110(a)(2)(C) related
to NNSR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2020-11643 Filed 6-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P