Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15713 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule, 

concerning a determination of 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the Baltimore Area, does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) is not 

approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Incorporation by reference, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: March 9, 2015. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06731 Filed 3–24–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0833; FRL–9924–97– 

Region–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Preconstruction 

Requirements—Nonattainment New 

Source Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted on August 22, 2013 

by the Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE). This revision 

pertains to Maryland’s major 

nonattainment New Source Review 

(NSR) program, notably preconstruction 

permitting requirements for sources of 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5). This 

action is being taken under the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 24, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0833 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: campbell.dave@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0833, 

David Campbell, Associate Director, 

Office of Permits and Air Toxics, 

Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 

0833. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., 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 either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

email at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On August 22, 2013, MDE submitted 

a SIP revision request to EPA. This SIP 

revision request, if approved, would 

revise Maryland’s currently approved 

nonattainment NSR program by 

amending Regulation .01 under section 

26.11.01 of the Code of Maryland 

Regulations (COMAR), and Regulations 

.01 and .02 under COMAR 26.11.17. 

Generally, the revisions incorporate 

provisions related to the 2008 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ (2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule). 73 FR 

28321 (May 16, 2008). The 2008 NSR 

PM2.5 rule: (1) Required NSR permits to 

address directly emitted PM2.5 and 

precursor pollutants; (2) established 

significant emission rates for direct 

PM2.5 and precursor pollutants 

(including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX)); (3) 

established PM2.5 emission offsets; and 

(4) required states to account for gases 

that condense to form particles 

(condensables) in PM2.5 emission limits. 

Additionally, the 2008 NSR PM2.5

Rule authorized states to adopt 

provisions in their nonattainment NSR 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

15714 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007). 

2 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

3The court’s opinion did not specifically address 

the point that implementation under subpart 4 

requirements would still require consideration of 

subpart 1 requirements, to the extent that subpart 

4 did not override subpart 1. EPA assumes that the 

court presumed that EPA would address this issue 

of potential overlap between subpart 1 and subpart 

4 requirements in subsequent actions. 

rules that would allow major stationary 

sources and major modifications 

locating in areas designated 

nonattainment for PM2.5 to offset 

emissions increases of direct PM2.5

emissions or PM2.5 precursors with 

reductions of either direct PM2.5

emissions or PM2.5 precursors in 

accordance with offset ratios contained 

in the approved SIP for the applicable 

nonattainment area. The inclusion, in 

whole or in part, of the interpollutant 

offset provisions for PM2.5 is 

discretionary on the part of the states. In 

the preamble to the 2008 NSR PM2.5

Rule, EPA included preferred or 

presumptive offset ratios, applicable to 

specific PM2.5 precursors, that states 

may adopt in conjunction with the new 

interpollutant offset provisions for 

PM2.5, and for which the state could rely 

on the EPA’s technical work to 

demonstrate the adequacy of the ratios 

for use in any PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

Alternatively, the preamble indicated 

that states may adopt their own ratios, 

subject to the EPA’s approval, that 

would have to be substantiated by 

modeling or other technical 

demonstrations of the net air quality 

benefit for ambient PM2.5

concentrations. The preferred ratios 

were subsequently the subject of a 

petition for reconsideration, which the 

Administrator granted. EPA continues 

to support the basic policy that sources 

may offset increases in emissions of 

direct PM2.5 or of any PM2.5 precursor in 

a PM2.5 nonattainment area with actual 

emissions reductions in direct PM2.5 or 

PM2.5 precursors in accordance with 

offset ratios as approved in the SIP for 

the applicable nonattainment area. 

However, we no longer consider the 

preferred ratios set forth in the preamble 

to the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule to be 

presumptively approvable. Instead, any 

ratio involving PM2.5 precursors 

adopted by the state for use in the 

interpollutant offset program for PM2.5

nonattainment areas must be 

accompanied by a technical 

demonstration that shows the net air 

quality benefits of such ratio for the 

PM2.5 nonattainment area in which it 

will be applied. Maryland’s August 22, 

2013 submittal did not include the 

interpollutant offset provisions. 

The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule (as well as 

the 2007 ‘‘Final Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule’’ (2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule) 1), was the subject 

of litigation before the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

EPA (hereafter, NRDC v. EPA).2 On 

January 4, 2013, the D.C. Circuit 

remanded to EPA both the 2007 PM2.5

Implementation Rule and the 2008 NSR 

PM2.5 Rule. The court found that in both 

rules EPA erred in implementing the 

1997 PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) solely 

pursuant to the general implementation 

provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title 

I of the CAA (subpart 1), rather than 

pursuant to the additional 

implementation provisions specific to 

particulate matter in subpart 4 of part D 

of title I (subpart 4).3 As a result, the 

court remanded both rules and 

instructed EPA ‘‘to re-promulgate these 

rules pursuant to subpart 4 consistent 

with this opinion.’’ Although the D.C. 

Circuit declined to establish a deadline 

for EPA’s response, EPA intends to 

respond promptly to the court’s remand 

and to promulgate new generally 

applicable implementation regulations 

for the PM2.5 NAAQS in accordance 

with the requirements of subpart 4. In 

the interim, however, states and EPA 

still need to proceed with 

implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in a timely and effective 

fashion in order to meet statutory 

obligations under the CAA and to assure 

the protection of public health intended 

by those NAAQS. In a June 2, 2014 final 

rulemaking entitled ‘‘Identification of 

Nonattainment Classification and 

Deadlines for Submission of State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions 

for the 1997 Fine Particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; Final 

Rule,’’ (79 FR 31566), EPA identified the 

classification status under subpart 4 for 

areas currently designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. That rulemaking also 

established a December 31, 2014 

deadline for the submission of any 

additional attainment related SIP 

elements that may be needed to meet 

the applicable requirements of subpart 

4. 

EPA is in the process of evaluating the 

requirements of subpart 4 as they 

pertain to nonattainment NSR. In 

particular, subpart 4 includes section 

189(e) of the CAA, which requires the 

control of major stationary sources of 

coarse particulate matter (PM10) 

precursors (and hence under the NRDC 

v. EPA court decision, PM2.5 precursors) 

‘‘except where the Administrator 

determines that such sources do not 

contribute significantly to PM10 levels 

which exceed the standard in the area.’’ 

The evaluation of which precursors 

need to be controlled to achieve the 

standard in a particular area is typically 

conducted in the context of the state’s 

preparing and the EPA’s reviewing an 

area’s attainment plan SIP. At the time 

of the August 22, 2013 SIP submittal, 

three areas in Maryland were designated 

as nonattainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS: The Maryland portion of 

the Washington DC–MD–VA 

nonattainment area; the Baltimore 

nonattainment area; and the Maryland 

portion of the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, 

MD–WV nonattainment area. 

Since the SIP submittal, EPA has 

taken final action to redesignate all of 

these areas to attainment. On October 6, 

2014, EPA took final action to 

redesignate the Washington, DC–MD– 

VA area. 79 FR 60081. On December 16, 

2014, EPA took final action to 

redesignate both the Baltimore 

nonattainment area and the 

Martinsburg-Hagerstown nonattainment 

area to attainment. 79 FR 75032 

(Baltimore area) and 79 FR 75035 

(Maryland portion of the MartinsburgHagerstown area). As a result, MDE is 

no longer obligated to submit a 

nonattainment NSR SIP revision under 

section 189 of the CAA addressing 

nonattainment NSR permitting 

requirements for PM2.5, including the 

requirements under subpart 4. 

Therefore, EPA has not evaluated the 

August 22, 2013 submittal for the 

purposes of determining compliance 

with the subpart 4 requirements. To the 

extent that any area is designated 

nonattainment for PM2.5 in Maryland in 

the future, MDE will have to make a 

submission under section 189 of the 

CAA addressing how its nonattainment 

permitting program satisfies the CAA 

statutory requirements as to PM2.5, 

including subpart 4 and any applicable 

PM2.5 Federal implementation rules. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

As previously discussed, this SIP 

revision incorporates provisions related 

to the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule, which: (1) 

Required NSR permits to address 

directly emitted PM2.5 and precursor 

pollutants;(2) established significant 

emission rates for direct PM2.5 and 

precursor pollutants (including sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX)); (3) established PM2.5 emission 

offsets; and (4) required states to 

account for gases that condense to form 

particles (condensables) in PM2.5

emission limits. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25, 2015 / Proposed Rules 15715 

To implement these provisions, 

Maryland amended Regulation .01 

under COMAR 26.11.01 (General 

Administrative Provisions) and 

Regulations .01 and .02 under COMAR 

26.11.17 (Nonattainment Provisions for 

Major New Sources and Major 

Modifications). The general definitions 

at COMAR 26.11.01.01 were amended to 

add definitions of ‘‘PM2.5’’ and ‘‘PM2.5

emissions.’’ COMAR 26.11.17 contains 

the preconstruction requirements for 

new major stationary sources and major 

modifications locating in nonattainment 

areas. The definitions of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ and ‘‘significant’’ under 

COMAR 26.11.17.01 were amended. 

The amended definitions require that 

sources account for the condensable 

fraction of PM10 and PM2.5, require that 

NOX and SO2 be regulated as precursors 

to PM10 and PM2.5, and establish 

significant emission rates (SERs) for 

PM2.5 and its precursors. COMAR 

26.11.17.02 was revised to specify that 

all of the major nonattainment NSR 

preconstruction requirements of the 

chapter are applicable to new major 

stationary sources and major 

modifications that are major for PM2.5 or 

its precursors. COMAR 26.11.17.02 was 

also revised to clarify that in addition to 

the requirements of that chapter, the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) requirements of COMAR 

26.11.04.16 may also apply to sources 

locating in nonattainment areas. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA’s review of this material 

indicates that the proposed revisions 

comply with the nonattainment NSR 

program requirements of the CAA and 

its implementing regulations (including 

the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule) that are 

applicable in Maryland at this time. 

EPA is therefore proposing to approve 

MDE’s August 22, 2013 submittal as a 

revision to the Maryland SIP. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this proposed action, the EPA is 

proposing to include in a final EPA rule, 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference amendments to 

Regulation .01 under COMAR 26.11.01 

(General Administrative Provisions) and 

Regulations .01 and .02 under COMAR 

26.11.17 (Nonattainment Provisions for 

Major New Sources and Major 

Modifications). The EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 proposed rule, relating 

to Maryland’s nonattainment NSR 

program, does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 9, 2015. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06729 Filed 3–24–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1 and 73 

[AU Docket No. 15–3; DA 15–25] 

Auction of FM Broadcast Construction 

Permits Scheduled for July 23, 2015; 

Comment Sought on Competitive 

Bidding Procedures for Auction 98 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed auction 

procedures; comment sought. 

SUMMARY: The Wireless 

Telecommunications and Media 

Bureaus (the Bureaus) announce the 

auction of certain FM broadcast 

construction permits. This document 

also seeks comment on competitive 

bidding procedures for Auction 98. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

April 1, 2015, and reply comments are 

due on or before April 8, 2015. Bidding 

for construction permits in Auction 98 

is scheduled to begin on July 23, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit comments to the Auction 98 

Request for Comment by any of the 

following methods: 

• FCC’s Web site: Federal 

Communication Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS): http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: FCC Headquarters, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• People With Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS