Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70095 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) Rollover amounts. The rule in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section (dealing 

with return of employee contributions) 

does not apply to a participant’s 

accumulated mandatory employee 

contributions resulting from rollover 

amounts (as determined under 

§ 4044.12(c)(4)(i) of this chapter) or the 

benefit derived from such mandatory 

employee contributions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Exception. Except in the case of 

accumulated mandatory employee 

contributions resulting from rollover 

amounts (as determined under 

§ 4044.12(c)(4)(i) of this chapter), upon 

the death of a participant the PBGC may 

pay in a single installment (or a series 

of installments) that portion of the 

participant’s accumulated mandatory 

employee contributions that is payable 

under the plan in a single installment 

(or a series of installments) upon the 

participant’s death. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 4022.8, add paragraph (f) to 

read as follows: 

§ 4022.8 Form of payment. 

* * * * * 

(f) Rollover amounts. The annuity 

benefit resulting from rollover amounts 

(as determined under § 4044.12(c)(4) of 

this chapter) is combined with any other 

benefit under the plan and paid in the 

same form and at the same time as the 

other benefit. 

■ 7. In § 4022.22, add paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 4022.22 Maximum guaranteeable benefit. 

* * * * * 

(d) Rollover amounts. Any portion of 

a benefit derived from mandatory 

employee contributions resulting from 

rollover amounts (as determined under 

§ 4044.12(c)(4)(i) of this chapter) is 

disregarded in applying the provisions 

of §§ 4022.22 and 4022.23. However, 

any portion of a benefit derived from 

employer contributions resulting from 

rollover amounts (as determined under 

§ 4044.12(c)(4)(ii) of this chapter) is 

combined with any other benefit under 

the plan for purposes of determining the 

maximum guaranteeable benefit under 

§§ 4022.22 and 4022.23. For example, 

assume that a participant has an $80,000 

total annual plan benefit at age 65, of 

which $15,000 is derived from 

mandatory employee contributions 

resulting from rollover amounts and 

$5,000 is derived from employer 

contributions resulting from rollover 

amounts. The $15,000 benefit derived 

from employee contributions resulting 

from rollover amounts would be 

excluded in the determination of the 

participant’s maximum guaranteeable 

amount. The participant’s remaining 

$65,000 benefit (including the $5,000 

benefit derived from employer 

contributions resulting from rollover 

amounts) would be subject to the 

maximum guaranteeable benefit 

limitation. Assuming the plan 

terminated in 2014, the participant’s 

maximum guaranteeable benefit of 

approximately $59,000 for a straight life 

annuity at age 65 would effectively be 

increased by the $15,000 benefit derived 

from employee contributions resulting 

from rollover amounts, resulting in total 

guaranteeable benefits of approximately 

$74,000. (The maximum guaranteeable 

benefit limitation would apply to the 

participant’s benefit derived from 

employer contributions; as a result, 

$6,000 of the participant’s benefit 

derived from employer contributions 

would not be guaranteeable by PBGC.) 

■ 8. In § 4022.24, add paragraph (g) to 

read as follows: 

§ 4022.24 Benefit increases. 

* * * * * 

(g) Rollover amounts. Any portion of 

a benefit derived from mandatory 

employee contributions resulting from 

rollover amounts (as determined under 

§ 4044.12 (c)(4)(i) of this chapter) is 

disregarded in applying the provisions 

of §§ 4022.24 through 4022.26. 

However, any portion of a benefit 

derived from employer contributions 

resulting from rollover amounts (as 

determined under § 4044.12(c)(4)(ii) of 

this chapter) is combined with any other 

benefit under the plan in applying the 

provisions of §§ 4022.24 through 

4022.26. In such case, the benefit 

increase is deemed to be in effect on the 

date the rollover amounts are received 

by the plan. 

PART 4044—ALLOCATION OF 

ASSETS IN SINGLE-EMPLOYER 

PLANS 

■ 9. The authority citation for part 4044 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 

1341, 1344, and 1362. 

■ 10. In 4044.12, paragraphs (b)(4) and 

(c)(4) are added to read as follows: 

§ 4044.12 Priority category 2 benefits. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Rollover amounts. In the case of a 

benefit resulting from rollover amounts, 

notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the 

interest rates and conversion factors in 

paragraph (c)(4) of this section are used 

to determine the portion of the accrued 

benefit derived from the employee’s 

contributions and, if any, the portion of 

the accrued benefit derived from 

employer contributions. 

(c) * * * 

(4) Special rules for benefit resulting 

from rollover amounts. (i) Mandatory 

employee contributions. 

Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (3) of this section, in the case 

of a benefit resulting from rollover 

amounts, the accrued benefit derived 

from mandatory employee contributions 

is determined using the interest rates 

and conversion factors under section 

411(c)(2)(B) and (C) of the Code for 

purposes of computing an employee’s 

accrued benefit derived from the 

employee’s contributions. The annuity 

benefit and the pre-retirement death 

benefit, as determined on this basis, is 

the benefit resulting from rollover 

amounts in priority category 2. 

(ii) Employer contributions. Any 

portion of a participant’s accrued 

benefit resulting from rollover amounts 

that is in excess of the accrued benefit 

derived from mandatory employee 

contributions determined in accordance 

with paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section 

(i.e., the accrued benefit derived from 

employer contributions) is a 

guaranteeable benefit in priority 

category 3, priority category 4, or 

priority category 5, as applicable under 

this part. 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 18 day of 

November, 2014. 

Alice C. Maroni, 

Acting Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation . 

[FR Doc. 2014–27826 Filed 11–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7709–02–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0690; FRL–9919–48– 

Region–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Maryland State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The revisions incorporate by 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
70096 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1See 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

reference (IBR) the current requirements 

of the Federal Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program into the 

Maryland SIP. Additionally, the 

revisions will allow Maryland’s PSD 

program to automatically update with 

any revisions to the Federal regulations. 

EPA is approving these revisions to 

Maryland’s PSD program in accordance 

with the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

26, 2015 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse written comment 

by December 26, 2014. If EPA receives 

such comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0690 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: kreider.andrew@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0690, 

Andrew Kreider, Acting 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– 

0690. 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, the Maryland 

Department of the Environment (MDE) 

submitted a formal revision (#13–05) to 

the Maryland State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The SIP revision incorporates by 

reference the most current Federal PSD 

regulations which are codified at 40 

CFR 52.21, and will allow future 

revisions to the Federal PSD program to 

be automatically incorporated into 

Maryland’s SIP. 

Maryland has previously adopted a 

PSD program through an IBR of a datespecific version of the Federal PSD 

program. The currently approved 

Maryland SIP incorporates the Federal 

regulations as published in the 2009 

version of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, and ‘‘as amended by the 

‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 

Rule’ (Tailoring Rule; 75 FR 31514), and 

the ‘Deferral for CO2 Emissions from 

Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources 

under the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Title V Programs’ 

(Biomass Deferral; 76 FR 43490).’’ 

EPA took final action to approve 

Maryland’s IBR of the 2009 version of 

40 CFR 52.21 ‘‘as amended’’ by the 

Tailoring Rule on August 2, 2012 (77 FR 

45949). Subsequently, MDE submitted a 

revision which incorporated the 

provisions of the Biomass Deferral into 

the Maryland SIP. On November 16, 

2012, EPA took final action to approve 

that revision (78 FR 13497). EPA’s 

August 2, 2012 approval incorporated a 

number of important required elements 

into Maryland’s PSD program, including 

those related to the 2008 

‘‘Implementation of New Source Review 

(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter 

Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ 

(2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule; 73 FR 28321). 

For PSD sources in Maryland, this 

required that PSD permits address direct 

PM2.5 emissions as well as precursor 

emissions (including sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX)), 

established significant emission rates for 

PM2.5 and precursor emissions, and 

established the requirement to account 

for condensable particulate matter. On 

January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (D.C. Circuit), in Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. 

EPA,1 issued a decision that remanded 

the EPA’s rules implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, including the 2008 NSR 

PM2.5 Rule. The court’s remand of the 

2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule is relevant to this 

final rulemaking. This rule promulgated 

NSR requirements for implementation 

of PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas 

(nonattainment NSR) and attainment/

unclassifiable areas (PSD). The D.C. 

Circuit found that EPA erred in 

implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS 

pursuant to the general implementation 

provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title 

I of the CAA, rather than pursuant to the 

additional implementation provisions 

specific to particulate matter 

nonattainment areas in subpart 4. The 

court ordered the EPA to ‘‘repromulgate 

these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 

consistent with this opinion.’’ Id. at 437. 

However, as the requirements of subpart 

4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, it 

is EPA’s position that the portions of the 

2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule that address 

requirements for PM2.5 in attainment 

and unclassifiable areas are not affected 

by the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in NRDC 

v. EPA. Moreover, EPA does not 

anticipate the need to revise any PSD 

requirements promulgated in the 2008 

NSR PM2.5 Rule in order to comply with 

the court’s decision. Accordingly, EPA’s 

approval of Maryland’s SIP as to the 

PSD requirements promulgated by the 

2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule in this action does 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70097 

2See 705 F.3d 458, 469. 

3 134 S.Ct. 2427. 

not conflict with the D.C. Circuit’s 

opinion. 

On October 20, 2010, EPA 

promulgated additional PSD regulations 

relating to PM2.5: ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 

Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs), and 

Significant Monitoring Concentrations 

(SMC)’’ (2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule; 73 FR 

64864). Because Maryland’s currently 

approved SIP incorporates the 2009 

version of the CFR, these provisions are 

not currently in the Maryland SIP. On 

January 22, 2013, the D.C. Circuit, in 

Sierra Club v. EPA,2 issued a judgment 

that, inter alia, vacated and remanded 

the SIL provisions at 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2). 

Additionally, the D.C. Circuit vacated 

the SMC provisions at section 

52.21(i)(5)(i)(c). In response to the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision, EPA took final action 

on December 9, 2013 to remove the SIL 

provisions from the Federal PSD 

regulations and to revise the SMC for 

PM2.5 to zero (78 FR 73698). Therefore, 

the provisions with which the court 

took issue are not in effect in Maryland 

and are not being approved into the 

Maryland SIP as part of this action. 

The 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule also 

established increments for PM2.5

pursuant to the legal authority 

contained in section 166(a) of the CAA 

for pollutants for which NAAQS are 

promulgated after 1977. An increment is 

the maximum allowable level of 

ambient pollutant concentration 

increase that is allowed to occur above 

the applicable baseline concentration in 

a particular area. As such, an increment 

defines ‘‘significant deterioration.’’ The 

PM2.5 increment provisions at 40 CFR 

52.21(c) were not affected by the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision on the 2010 PSD 

PM2.5 Rule, and are therefore being 

approved into the Maryland SIP with 

this final approval action. 

Additionally, EPA notes that on June 

23, 2014, the United States Supreme 

Court, in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. 

Environmental Protection Agency,3

issued a decision addressing the 

application of PSD permitting 

requirements to greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions. The Supreme Court said that 

the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air 

pollutant for purposes of determining 

whether a source is a major source (or 

modification thereof) required to obtain 

a PSD permit. The Court also said that 

the EPA could continue to require that 

PSD permits, otherwise required based 

on emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs, contain limitations on GHG 

emissions based on the application of 

Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT). In order to act consistently with 

its understanding of the Court’s decision 

pending further judicial action before 

the D.C. Circuit to effectuate the 

decision, the EPA is not continuing to 

apply EPA regulations that would 

require that SIPs include permitting 

requirements that the Supreme Court 

found impermissible. Specifically, EPA 

is not applying the requirement that a 

state’s SIP-approved PSD program 

require that sources obtain PSD permits 

when GHGs are the only pollutant: (i) 

That the source emits or has the 

potential to emit above the major source 

thresholds; or (ii) for which there is a 

significant emissions increase and a 

significant net emissions increase from 

a modification (e.g. 40 CFRs 

51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v)). 

EPA anticipates a need to revise 

federal PSD rules in light of the 

Supreme Court opinion. In addition, 

EPA anticipates that many states will 

revise their existing SIP-approved PSD 

programs in light of the Supreme 

Court’s decision. In states that allow 

future revisions to the Federal PSD 

program to be automatically 

incorporated into the SIP as Maryland 

has done in this case, this will be 

accomplished as soon as EPA revises 

the federal PSD rules. The timing and 

content of subsequent EPA actions with 

respect to the EPA regulations is 

expected to be informed by additional 

legal processes before the D.C. Circuit. 

EPA is not expecting states to have 

revised their existing PSD program 

regulations at this juncture before the 

D.C. Circuit has addressed these issues 

and before EPA has revised its 

regulations at 40 CFRs 51.166 and 52.21. 

However, EPA is evaluating PSD 

program submissions to assure that the 

state’s program correctly addresses 

GHGs consistent with the Supreme 

Court’s decision. 

Maryland’s existing approved SIP 

contains the greenhouse gas permitting 

requirements reflected in 40 CFR 52.21 

after EPA issued the Tailoring Rule. As 

a result, the PSD permitting program in 

Maryland previously approved by EPA 

into the SIP continues to require that 

PSD permits (otherwise required based 

on emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs) contain limitations on GHG 

emissions based on the application of 

BACT when sources emit or increase 

greenhouse gases in the amount of 

75,000 tons per year (measured as 

carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent CO2e). 

Although the approved Maryland PSD 

permitting program may also currently 

contain provisions that are no longer 

necessary in light of the Supreme Court 

decision, this does not prevent EPA 

from approving the submission 

addressed in this rule. Maryland’s 2013 

SIP submission does not add any 

greenhouse gas permitting requirements 

that are inconsistent with the Supreme 

Court decision. While this submission 

incorporates all of 40 CFR 52.21 for 

completeness, the submission 

reincorporates PSD permitting 

requirements for greenhouse gases that 

are mostly already in the Maryland SIP. 

However, this revision does add to the 

Maryland SIP the elements of EPA’s 

2012 rule implementing Step 3 of the 

phase in of PSD permitting 

requirements for greenhouse gases 

described in the Tailoring Rule. 77 FR 

41051 (July 12, 2012). This rule became 

effective on August 13, 2012. 

Specifically, the incorporation of the 

Step 3 rule provisions will allow GHGemitting sources to obtain plantwide 

applicability limits (PALs) for their GHG 

emissions on a CO2e basis. The GHG 

PAL provisions, as currently written, 

include some provisions that may no 

longer be appropriate in light of the 

Supreme Court decision. Since the 

Supreme Court has determined that 

sources and modifications may not be 

defined as ‘‘major’’ solely on the basis 

of the level of greenhouse gases emitted 

or increased, PALs for greenhouse gases 

may no longer have value in some 

situations where a source might have 

triggered PSD based on greenhouse gas 

emissions alone. However, PALs for 

GHGs may still have a role to play in 

determining whether a modification that 

triggers PSD for a pollutant other than 

greenhouse gases should also be subject 

to BACT for greenhouse gases. These 

provisions, like the other GHG 

provisions discussed previously, will 

likely be revised pending further legal 

action. However, this SIP revision does 

not add new requirements for sources or 

modifications that only emit or increase 

greenhouse gases above the major 

source threshold or the 75,000 tpy 

greenhouse gas level in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(49)(iv). Rather, the PAL’s 

provisions provide increased flexibility 

to sources that wish to address their 

GHG emissions in a PAL. Since this 

flexibility may still be valuable to 

sources in at least one context described 

above, EPA believes that it is 

appropriate to approve these provisions 

into the Maryland SIP at this juncture. 

While the automatic IBR of 40 CFR 

52.21 being approved into Maryland’s 

SIP through this action will incorporate 

some regulations that will be revised in 

subsequent EPA actions to address the 

Supreme Court decision, approving the 

automatic IBR into Maryland’s SIP at 

this time will ensure that Maryland’s 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
70098 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

4See 722 F.3d 401. 

PSD requirements will remain 

consistent with the Federal regulations 

at the time of any subsequent revisions 

EPA makes to the Federal PSD program. 

In a related matter, on July 12, 2013, the 

D.C. Circuit, in Center for Biological 

Diversity v. EPA 4 vacated the provisions 

of the Biomass Deferral, which had 

delayed (for three years) the 

applicability of PSD and title V 

requirements to biogenic CO2 emissions. 

While the ultimate disposition of the 

Federal regulations implementing the 

Biomass Deferral has not yet been 

determined, the deferral expired on July 

21, 2014 anyway, and could not 

presently be used even absent the 

vacatur. As previously discussed, any 

future revisions to the Federal 

regulations will automatically be 

incorporated into Maryland’s SIP. 

Therefore, while this approval action 

includes the vacated portions of 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a), EPA’s approval does 

not conflict with the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

MDE’s August 22, 2013 SIP revision 

request includes amendments to the 

following provisions of the Code of 

Maryland Regulations (COMAR): 

Regulation .01 under 26.11.01—General 

Administrative Provisions, and 

Regulation .14 under COMAR 

26.11.06—General Emission Standards, 

Prohibitions, and Restrictions. The 

revisions remove the date-specific IBR 

of section 52.21, replacing it with an 

IBR of 40 CFR 52.21 ‘‘as amended.’’ As 

previously discussed, these revisions 

incorporate the current Federal PSD 

requirements, and will automatically 

incorporate any future changes to the 

Federal regulations into the Maryland 

SIP. EPA is approving the SIP revision 

in accordance with the CAA and the 

requirements for PSD permitting 

programs. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving MDE’s August 22, 

2013 submittal as a revision to the 

Maryland SIP. EPA is publishing this 

rule without prior proposal because 

EPA views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comment. However, in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register, EPA is publishing a separate 

document that will serve as the proposal 

to approve the SIP revision if adverse 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective on January 26, 2015 without 

further notice unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by December 26, 

2014. If EPA receives adverse comment, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in 

the Federal Register informing the 

public that the rule will not take effect. 

EPA will address all public comments 

in a subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. 

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 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 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 January 26, 2015. 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. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking action. 

This action pertaining to Maryland’s 

PSD program 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70099 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: November 5, 2014. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart V—Maryland 

■ 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising the entry/

entries for COMAR 26.11.01.01 and 

26.11.06.14. The revised text reads as 

follows: 

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS, TECHNICAL MEMORANDA, AND STATUTES IN THE MARYLAND SIP 

Code of Maryland administrative 

regulations (COMAR) citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date 

Additional 

explanation/citation at 

40 CFR 52.1100 

26.11.01 General Administrative Provisions 

26.11.01.01 .................................. Definitions .................................... 7/8/13 11/25/14 [Insert Federal Register citation].Revised .01B(37). 

* * * * * * * 

26.11.06 General Emission Standards, Prohibitions, and Restrictions 

*******

26.11.06.14 .................................. Control of PSD Sources .............. 7/8/13 11/25/14 [Insert Federal Register citation].Revised .14B(1). 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–27749 Filed 11–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0690; FRL–9919–65– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; West 

Virginia’s Redesignation Request and 

Associated Maintenance Plan of the 

West Virginia Portion of the 

Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV–MD 

Nonattainment Area for the 1997 

Annual Fine Particulate Matter 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the State of 

West Virginia’s request to redesignate to 

attainment the West Virginia portion of 

the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV–MD 

nonattainment area (the Martinsburg 

Area or Area) for the 1997 annual fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

EPA is also approving as a revision to 

the West Virginia State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) the associated maintenance 

plan to show maintenance of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025 for 

the Area. As part of this action, EPA is 

making a determination that the 

Martinsburg Area continues to attain the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 

2025 PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

mobile vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs) for Berkeley County, West 

Virginia for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS which EPA is approving for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

Furthermore, EPA is approving, as a 

revision to the West Virginia SIP, the 

2007 base year emissions inventory for 

the Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. These actions are being taken 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 26, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0690. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., 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 either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection 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 West Virginia 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 

57th Street SE., Charleston, West 

Virginia 25304. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose 

Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by email at 

quinto.rose@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On August 5, 2013, the State of West 

Virginia through the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(WVDEP) formally submitted a request 

to redesignate the West Virginia portion 

of the Martinsburg Area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Concurrently, WVDEP submitted a 

maintenance plan for the Area as a SIP 

revision to ensure continued attainment 

throughout the Area over the next 10 

years. The maintenance plan also 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES