
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 145 (Monday, July 31, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35451-35454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15979]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0783; FRL-9965-45-Region 3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maryland; Regional Haze Best Available Retrofit Technology Measure for 
Verso Luke Paper Mill

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state 
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. 
This revision pertains to a best available retrofit technology (BART) 
alternative measure for the Verso Luke Paper Mill (the Mill) submitted 
by the State of Maryland. Maryland requests new emissions limits for 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 
for power boiler 24 at the Mill and a SO2 cap on tons 
emitted per year for power boiler 25, while also requesting removal of 
the specific BART emission limits for SO2 and NOX 
from power boiler 25. The alternative BART measure will provide greater 
reasonable progress for SO2 and NOX for regional 
haze by resulting in additional emission reductions of 2,055 tons per 
year (tpy) of SO2 and an additional 804 tpy of 
NOX than would occur through the previously approved BART 
measure for power boiler 25, a BART subject source. No comments were 
received in response to EPA's proposed rulemaking notice published on 
May 30, 2017. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0783. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 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 
http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by 
email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Regional haze is impairment of visual range or colorization caused 
by air pollution, principally by fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5), produced by numerous sources and activities, 
located across a broad regional area. The sources include, but are not 
limited to, major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and 
area sources including non-anthropogenic sources. These sources and 
activities may emit PM2.5 (e.g. sulfates, nitrates, organic 
carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g. 
SO2, NOX, and in some cases, ammonia and volatile 
organic compounds). PM2.5 can also cause serious health 
effects and mortality in humans, and contributes to environmental 
effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
    In the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress established a program to 
protect and improve visibility in the Nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. See CAA section 169A. Congress amended the visibility 
provisions in the CAA in 1990 to focus attention on the problem of 
regional haze. See CAA section 169B. EPA promulgated regional haze 
regulations (RHR) in 1999 to implement sections 169A and 169B of the 
CAA. These regulations require states to develop and implement plans to 
ensure reasonable progress towards improving visibility in mandatory 
Class I Federal areas.\1\ See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); see also 70 
FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While Maryland has no Class I areas within its borders, 
there are several Class I areas nearby including Dolly Sods 
Wilderness Area and Otter Creek Wilderness Area in West Virginia; 
Brigantine Wilderness in New Jersey; Great Smoky Mountains National 
Park in North Carolina and Tennessee; James River Face and 
Shenandoah National Park in Virginia; Linville Gorge in North 
Carolina; and Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RHR requires each state's regional haze implementation plan to 
contain emission limitations representing best available retrofit 
technology (BART) and schedules for compliance with BART for each 
source subject to BART, unless the state demonstrates that an emissions 
trading program or other alternative measure will achieve greater 
reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions. The 
requirements for alternative measures are established at 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2).
    In addition to demonstrating greater reasonable progress towards 
improving

[[Page 35452]]

visibility, among other things, the RHR also requires that all 
necessary emission reductions from a BART alternative take place during 
the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze (i.e., 
2008-2018) and requires a demonstration that the emission reductions 
from the alternative measure will be surplus to the reductions from 
measures adopted to meet CAA requirements as of the baseline date of 
the SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). The baseline date for regional haze SIPs 
is 2002. See Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Peter Tsirigotis, 2002 
Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-Hr Ozone, 
PM2.5, and Regional Haze Programs, November 8, 2002. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/2002bye-gm.pdf. See 79 FR 56322, 
56328-29 (September 19, 2014) (proposing approval of alternative BART 
for Arizona SIP).
    Maryland's regional haze SIP was submitted by the Maryland 
Department of the Environment (MDE) on February 13, 2012 and approved 
by EPA in June 2012. See 77 FR 39938 (June 13, 2012). This regional 
haze SIP included, among other measures, BART emission limits for power 
boiler 25 at the Verso Luke Paper Mill because power boiler 25 was a 
BART subject source. The BART emission limits which EPA had approved in 
June 2012 for power boiler 25 were 0.44 pounds per million British 
thermal units (lb/MMBtu) for SO2, a 30-day rolling limit of 
0.40 lb/MMBtu for NOX, and 0.07 lb/MMBtu for particulate 
matter (PM).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While EPA's approval of Maryland's regional haze SIP in 2012 
included a PM limit for power boiler 25 of 0.07 lb/MMBtu, Maryland 
is not seeking to revise that PM limit for BART on power boiler 25 
and thus the PM limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu remains on power boiler 25. 
See 77 FR 39938. This rulemaking action pertains to adjusting the 
BART limits for SO2 and NOX for power boiler 
25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 30, 2017 (82 FR 24614), EPA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. In the NPR, EPA proposed 
approval of the BART alternative measure for the Verso Luke Paper Mill. 
No comments were received in response to EPA's proposed rulemaking 
notice. The formal SIP revision (#16-14) was submitted by the State of 
Maryland on November 28, 2016.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The SIP revision seeks to revise the BART strategy for the Verso 
Luke Paper Mill, specifically the emission limits for power boiler 25 
for SO2 and NOX. MDE states that Verso Luke Paper 
Mill is eliminating the use of coal as a source of fuel used in power 
boiler 24 and replacing it with natural gas. MDE's SIP revision 
submittal seeks alternative BART emission limits for SO2 and 
NOX for power boiler 24, and seeks to remove the previously 
approved BART requirements for SO2 and NOX from 
power boiler 25 and replace them with new, alternative emission 
requirements. Specifically, for power boiler 24 at the Mill, Maryland's 
SIP revision seeks to establish (1) a new BART emission limit of 0.28 
lb/MMBtu, measured as an hourly average for SO2; (2) a new 
BART emission limit of 0.4 lb/MMBtu, measured on a 30-day rolling 
average for NOX; and (3) associated monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. For power boiler 25, this SIP 
revision seeks to: (1) Remove the SO2 BART emission limit 
approved by EPA in June 2012 and seeks to establish an annual 
SO2 cap of 9,876 tons measured on a 12-month rolling 
average; (2) remove the NOX BART emission limit but retain 
existing requirements under COMAR 26.11.14.07 applicable to the power 
boiler; and (3) impose associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements. The BART requirements for PM approved by EPA in 
June 2012 on power boiler 25 would remain unchanged.
    MDE's analysis demonstrates that the alternative SO2 
BART measure (i.e. new SO2 emission limit on power boiler 
24; removal of approved SO2 BART limit and new annual 
SO2 cap on power boiler 25) would provide an additional 
2,055 tpy in SO2 emissions reductions (or 20% more emission 
reductions) than the tons per year to be reduced by the currently 
approved BART requirements on power boiler 25. MDE's analysis also 
shows that the alternative NOX BART measure on power boiler 
24 (with removed BART limit on power boiler 25) would provide an 
additional 804 tpy in NOX emission reductions than the 
currently approved BART requirements on power boiler 25. Finally, MDE's 
analysis shows that the alternative NOX BART measure on 
power boiler 24 would provide a 227 tons per ozone season 
NOX benefit than would the currently approved BART 
requirements on power boiler 25.
    Thus, with the additional SO2 and NOX 
emission reductions per year, EPA finds that the alternative 
SO2 and NOX BART emission limits on power boiler 
24 (with the SO2 tpy cap on power boiler 25) will provide 
for greater reasonable progress toward achieving natural visibility 
conditions than would be achieved through the currently approved BART 
emission limits on power boiler 25. EPA also finds the emission 
reductions from the new limits on power boiler 24 (and SO2 
tpy cap on power boiler 25) have been implemented before the end of the 
first regional haze planning period (i.e. 2018). In addition, the 
emission reductions from the proposed BART emission limits for power 
boiler 24 for SO2 and NOX are surplus to 
reductions resulting from CAA requirements as of the baseline date of 
the SIP or 2002. More information on Maryland's SIP submittal and on 
EPA's analysis of emission reductions from the alternative BART measure 
(including discussion of the reductions as implemented and surplus) is 
provided in the Technical Support Document (TSD) which is available 
online at www.regulations.gov for this rulemaking. Therefore, EPA finds 
Maryland's SIP revision for the alternative BART emission limits for 
SO2 and NOX for power boiler 24 (and 
SO2 cap on power boiler 25) meet the requirements for an 
alternative BART measure in accordance with CAA section 169A and as 
established at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) in the RHR.
    In addition, EPA finds that this SIP revision, which seeks to 
remove BART SO2 and NOX emission limits for power 
boiler 25 from the approved Maryland regional haze SIP, meets the 
requirements of CAA section 110(l) and will not interfere with 
attainment and maintenance of any NAAQS, reasonable further progress or 
any other applicable CAA requirement. EPA finds that Maryland has 
demonstrated that additional SO2 and NOX emission 
reductions will be achieved each year with the alternative BART 
emission limits on power boiler 24 and SO2 tpy cap on power 
boiler 25, and as such, no interference with reasonable further 
progress or any NAAQS is expected. As discussed previously, the 
alternative BART emission limits on power boiler 24 meet other CAA 
requirements in section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). Other specific 
requirements and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained 
in the NPR as well as the technical support document (TSD) under Docket 
ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0783, available online at www.regulations.gov, 
and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the 
NPR.

III. Final Action

    EPA has reviewed Maryland's SIP revision seeking an alternative 
BART measure and emission limits for power boiler 24 (and 
SO2 tpy cap on power boiler 25) compared to EPA's previously 
federally enforceable BART limits for SO2 and NOX 
on power boiler 25. EPA finds that the alternative BART measure for 
Verso Luke Paper Mill with SO2 and NOX limits as 
alternative BART on

[[Page 35453]]

power boiler 24 will result in greater emission reductions in 
SO2 and NOX from the facility and provide greater 
reasonable progress and greater visibility improvement than the 
currently approved BART measure which applies solely to power boiler 
25. Specifically, the conversion of power boiler 24 from a coal-burning 
boiler to a natural gas power boiler with new emission limits contained 
within a federally enforceable permit is expected to result in fewer 
SO2 and NOX emissions from the Mill. MDE's 
analysis shows that in comparison to the currently approved BART 
requirements on power boiler 25, the alternative BART measure on power 
boiler 24 of 0.28 lb/MMBtu, measured as an hourly average for 
SO2 and 0.4 lb/MMBtu, measured on a 30-day rolling average 
for NOX with the 9,876 SO2 cap on power boiler 
25, would provide (1) an additional 2,055 tpy in SO2 
emissions reductions; (2) an additional 804 tpy in NOX 
emission reductions; and (3) a 227 tons per ozone season NOX 
benefit. In addition, EPA finds that the alternative BART emission 
limits will result in reductions surplus to CAA requirements as of 2002 
and will be implemented prior to the end of 2018. EPA is approving the 
November 28, 2016 SIP submittal as it meets the requirements in CAA 
section 169A and in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA is also incorporating by 
reference the permit requirements for power boilers 24 and 25 issued 
August 17, 2016 for the Mill, which include alternative emission 
requirements, as well as monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements.
    EPA also finds that this SIP revision meets the requirements of CAA 
section 110(l) and will not interfere with attainment and maintenance 
of any NAAQS, reasonable further progress or any other applicable CAA 
requirement. Therefore, EPA is approving Maryland's November 28, 2016 
SIP revision submittal as it meets CAA requirements.

IV. 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);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the 
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules 
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency 
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect 
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required 
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by September 29, 2017. 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 pertaining to alternative BART emission limits for 
Verso Luke Paper Mill 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 13, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding 
the entry ``Maryland Regional Haze Plan'' directly below the existing 
``Maryland Regional Haze Plan'' entry that has a state submittal date 
of 2/13/2012 to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

[[Page 35454]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name of non-regulatory SIP         Applicable            State                                 Additional
           revision                geographic area    submittal date   EPA approval date        explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Maryland Regional Haze Plan...  Statewide...........      11/28/2016  7/31/2017 [insert    Establishes the
                                                                       Federal Register     alternative BART
                                                                       citation].           limits for Verso
                                                                                            Luke Paper Mill
                                                                                            power boiler 24 of
                                                                                            0.28 lb/MMBtu,
                                                                                            measured as an
                                                                                            hourly average for
                                                                                            SO2; and 0.4 lb/
                                                                                            MMBtu, measured on a
                                                                                            30-day rolling
                                                                                            average for NOX; and
                                                                                            9,876 SO2 cap on
                                                                                            power boiler 25.
                                                                                            Also incorporates by
                                                                                            reference
                                                                                            monitoring,
                                                                                            recordkeeping and
                                                                                            reporting
                                                                                            requirements. These
                                                                                            requirements replace
                                                                                            BART measure
                                                                                            originally approved
                                                                                            on 2/13/12 for Luke
                                                                                            Paper Mill.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-15979 Filed 7-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


