[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