Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43571 

and the Treasury Department 

participated in their development. 

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 

Income taxes, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Proposed Amendments to the 

Regulations 

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 1—INCOME TAXES 

■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation 

for part 1 continues to read in part as 

follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * 

■ Par. 2. Section 1.170A–1 is amended 

by redesignating paragraphs (h)(3) 

through (h)(5) as paragraphs (h)(4) 

through (h)(6), and adding a new 

paragraph (h)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 1.170A–1 Charitable, etc., contributions 

and gifts; allowance of deduction. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(3) Payments resulting in state or local 

tax benefits. (i) State or local tax credits. 

Except as provided in paragraph 

(h)(3)(v) of this section, if a taxpayer 

makes a payment or transfers property 

to or for the use of an entity listed in 

section 170(c), the amount of the 

taxpayer’s charitable contribution 

deduction under section 170(a) is 

reduced by the amount of any state or 

local tax credit that the taxpayer 

receives or expects to receive in 

consideration for the taxpayer’s 

payment or transfer. 

(ii) State or local tax deductions. (A) 

In general. If a taxpayer makes a 

payment or transfers property to or for 

the use of an entity listed in section 

170(c), and the taxpayer receives or 

expects to receive a state or local tax 

deduction that does not exceed the 

amount of the taxpayer’s payment or the 

fair market value of the property 

transferred by the taxpayer to such 

entity, the taxpayer is not required to 

reduce its charitable contribution 

deduction under section 170(a) on 

account of such state or local tax 

deduction. 

(B) Excess state or local tax 

deductions. If the taxpayer receives or 

expects to receive a state or local tax 

deduction that exceeds the amount of 

the taxpayer’s payment or the fair 

market value of the property transferred, 

the taxpayer’s charitable contribution 

deduction under section 170 is reduced. 

(iii) In consideration for. For purposes 

of paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section, the 

term in consideration for shall have the 

meaning set forth in § 1.170A–13(f)(6), 

except that the state or local tax credit 

need not be provided by the donee 

organization. 

(iv) Amount of reduction. For 

purposes of paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this 

section, the amount of any state or local 

tax credit is the maximum credit 

allowable that corresponds to the 

amount of the taxpayer’s payment or 

transfer to the entity listed in section 

170(c). 

(v) State or local tax. For purposes of 

paragraph (h)(3) of this section, the term 

state or local tax means a tax imposed 

by a State, a possession of the United 

States, or by a political subdivision of 

any of the foregoing, or by the District 

of Columbia. 

(vi) Exception. Paragraph (h)(3)(i) of 

this section shall not apply to any 

payment or transfer of property if the 

amount of the state or local tax credit 

received or expected to be received by 

the taxpayer does not exceed 15 percent 

of the taxpayer’s payment, or 15 percent 

of the fair market value of the property 

transferred by the taxpayer. 

(vii) Examples. The following 

examples illustrate the provisions of 

this paragraph (h)(3). The examples in 

paragraph (h)(6) of this section are not 

illustrative for purposes of this 

paragraph (h)(3). 

Example 1. A, an individual, makes a 

payment of $1,000 to X, an entity listed in 

section 170(c). In exchange for the payment, 

A receives or expects to receive a state tax 

credit of 70% of the amount of A’s payment 

to X. Under paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section, 

A’s charitable contribution deduction is 

reduced by $700 (70% × $1,000). This 

reduction occurs regardless of whether A is 

able to claim the state tax credit in that year. 

Thus, A’s charitable contribution deduction 

for the $1,000 payment to X may not exceed 

$300. 

Example 2. B, an individual, transfers a 

painting to Y, an entity listed in section 

170(c). At the time of the transfer, the 

painting has a fair market value of $100,000. 

In exchange for the painting, B receives or 

expects to receive a state tax credit equal to 

10% of the fair market value of the painting. 

Under paragraph (h)(3)(vi) of this section, B 

is not required to apply the general rule of 

paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section because the 

amount of the tax credit received or expected 

to be received by B does not exceed 15% of 

the fair market value of the property 

transferred to Y. Accordingly, the amount of 

B’s charitable contribution deduction for the 

transfer of the painting is not reduced under 

paragraph (h)(3)(i) of this section. 

Example 3. C, an individual, makes a 

payment of $1,000 to Z, an entity listed in 

section 170(c). In exchange for the payment, 

under state M law, C is entitled to receive a 

state tax deduction equal to the amount paid 

by C to Z. Under paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(A) of 

this section, C is not required to reduce its 

charitable contribution deduction under 

section 170(a) on account of the state tax 

deduction. 

(viii) Effective/applicability date. This 

paragraph (h)(3) applies to amounts 

paid or property transferred by a 

taxpayer after August 27, 2018. 

* * * * * 

§ 1.170A–13 [Amended] 

■ Par. 3. Section 1.170A–13(f)(7) is 

amended by removing the crossreference ‘‘§ 1.170A–1(h)(4)’’ and adding 

in its place ‘‘§ 1.170A–1(h)(5)’’. 

■ Par. 4. Section 1.642(c)–3 is amended 

by adding paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.642(c)–3 Adjustments and other 

special rules for determining unlimited 

charitable contributions deduction. 

* * * * * 

(g) Payments resulting in state or local 

tax benefits—(1) In general. If the trust 

or decedent’s estate makes a payment of 

gross income for a purpose specified in 

section 170(c), and the trust or 

decedent’s estate receives or expects to 

receive a state or local tax benefit in 

consideration for such payment, 

§ 1.170A–1(h)(3) applies in determining 

the charitable contribution deduction 

under section 642(c). 

(2) Effective/applicability date. 

Paragraph (g)(1) of this section applies 

to payments of gross income after 

August 27, 2018. 

Kristen Wielobob, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18377 Filed 8–23–18; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0598; FRL–9982– 

85—Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Regional Haze Five-Year 

Progress Report 

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 by the State of Maryland. 

Maryland’s SIP revision, the Regional 

Haze Five-Year Progress Report, 

addresses Clean Air Act (CAA) 

provisions that require the State to 

submit periodic reports addressing 

reasonable progress goals (RPGs) 

established for regional haze and to 

make a determination of the adequacy of 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
43572 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 

7472(a)). See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D. 

2On July 6, 2012 (77 FR 39938), EPA approved 

Maryland’s regional haze SIP submittal addressing 

the requirements of the first implementation period 

for regional haze. 

3MANE–VU was formed by the Mid-Atlantic and 

Northeastern states, tribes, and federal agencies to 

coordinate regional haze planning activities for the 

region to meet requirements in the CAA and federal 

regional haze regulations. 

4BART eligible sources are those sources which 

have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a 

visibility-impairing air pollutant, were put in place 

between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and 

whose operations fall within one or more of 26 

specifically listed source categories. 

5The MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ was structured around 

the finding that SO2 emissions were the dominate 

visibility impairing pollutant at the Northeastern 

Class I areas and that EGUs comprised the largest 

SO2 emission sector. 

6The HAA, codified at COMAR 26.11.27, was 

effective as of July 16, 2007 and was approved by 

EPA into the Maryland SIP on September 4, 2008 

(73 FR 51599). 

7R. Paul Smith Units 3 & 4 have shut down since 

the approval of Maryland’s regional haze SIP in 

2012. The HAA originally addressed 15 units, but 

currently addresses 13 active EGUs in the state. 

the State’s existing regional haze SIP. 

Maryland’s progress report notes that 

the State has implemented the measures 

that are specified in the regional haze 

SIP which were due to be in place by 

the date of the progress report. The 

progress report also notes that visibility 

in federal Class I areas that may have 

been affected by emissions from 

Maryland is improving and that these 

Class I areas have already met the 

applicable RPGs for 2018. EPA is 

proposing approval of Maryland’s 

progress report and its determination 

that the State’s regional haze SIP is 

adequate to meet these RPGs for the first 

implementation period, which extends 

through 2018, and requires no 

substantive revision. This action is 

being taken under the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 26, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2017–0598 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

confidential business information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the ‘‘For Further 

Information Contact’’ section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Trouba, (215) 814–2023, or by email at 

trouba.erin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

States are required to submit a 

progress report in the form of a SIP 

revision that evaluates progress towards 

visibility improvement in the first 

implementation period, including 

progress towards the RPGs for each 

mandatory Class I federal area 1 (Class I 

area) within the state and in each Class 

I area outside the state which may be 

affected by emissions from within the 

state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require 

states to submit, at the same time as the 

40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

state’s existing regional haze SIP. The 

progress report SIP for the first planning 

period is due five years after submittal 

of the initial regional haze SIP. On 

February 13, 2012, Maryland submitted 

the State’s first regional haze SIP in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308.2 On 

August 9, 2017, Maryland, through the 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE), submitted a 

progress report, as a revision to its SIP, 

which detailed the progress made in the 

first planning period toward 

implementation of the Long-Term 

Strategy (LTS) outlined in the 2012 

regional haze SIP, the visibility 

improvement measured at Class I areas 

affected by emissions from Maryland, 

and a determination of the adequacy of 

the State’s existing regional haze SIP. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

Maryland’s regional haze progress 

report SIP submittal (2017 progress 

report) addresses the elements for 

progress reports required under the 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

includes a determination as required by 

40 CFR 51.308(h) that the State’s 

existing regional haze SIP requires no 

substantive revision to achieve the 

established regional haze visibility 

improvement and emissions reduction 

goals for 2018. This section summarizes 

Maryland’s 2017 progress report and 

EPA’s analysis and proposed approval 

of Maryland’s submittal. 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report 

As required in 40 CFR 51.308(g), 

Maryland’s 2017 progress report 

evaluated the status of all measures 

included in the State’s 2012 regional 

haze SIP for achieving RPGs for affected 

Class I areas. Through consultation, 

states in the Mid Atlantic/Northeast 

Visibility Union (MANE–VU),3

including Maryland, were requested to 

adopt and implement control strategies 

to assure reasonable progress towards 

improvement of visibility in the MANE– 

VU Class I areas. These strategies are 

commonly referred to as the MANE–VU 

‘‘Ask.’’ The MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ includes: 

(1) 90% or more reduction in sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emissions at 167 electric 

generating unit (EGU) ‘‘stacks’’ 

identified by MANE–VU (or comparable 

alternative measures), (2) timely 

implementation of best available retrofit 

technology (BART) 4 requirements, (3) 

lower sulfur fuel oil (with limits 

specified for each state), and (4) 

continued evaluation of other control 

measures.5 The strategies from the 

‘‘Ask’’ are the measures that Maryland 

included in the 2012 regional haze SIP 

and which are addressed in the 2017 

progress report. Maryland addressed the 

measures listed in the 2012 regional 

haze SIP through implementing the 

state-wide Healthy Air Act (HAA),6

implementing BART or alternatives to 

BART, adopting a low-sulfur fuel oil 

regulation into COMAR 03.03.05.04, 

and evaluating other control methods to 

reduce SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX). 

In response to the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ 

to achieve 90% or more reduction in 

SO2 emissions at 167 EGU ‘‘stacks,’’ 

Maryland demonstrates, in the 2017 

progress report, that the HAA has been 

implemented and has provided 

significant reductions in SO2 and NOX

from coal-fired EGUs, including several 

BART-eligible units. At the BART 

eligible EGUs, the existing controls were 

considered BART for NOX, SO2, and 

particulate matter (PM). The HAA 

addressed 15 coal-fired EGUs in the 

state, including the twelve identified 

within the ‘‘Ask’s’’ 167 stacks and all 

seven of the BART-eligible EGUs in the 

state.7 The HAA established tonnage 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43573 

8The requirements for alternative measures are 

established at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). 

9The BART limits for power boiler 25 approved 

in 2012 were 0.07 pounds per million British 

thermal units (lb/mmBtu) for PM, 0.40 lb/mmBtu 

on a rolling 30 day average for NOX and 0.44 lb/ 

mmBtu for SO2. 

caps for emissions of NOX and SO2 from 

15 coal-fired EGUs, 13 of which are still 

operating. The HAA’s annual SO2 caps 

were implemented in two phases, first 

in 2010 and then in 2013. The annual 

NOX caps were implemented in 2009 

and 2012. In the 2017 progress report, 

Maryland reported that NOX emissions 

were reduced by 89% from a 2002 

baseline from these EGUs and SO2

emissions from these EGUs were 

reduced by 269,444 tons per year from 

the 2002 baseline, a 92% reduction from 

2002 to 2015. Maryland asserts that the 

SO2 and NOX emissions reductions 

under the HAA exceeded reductions 

that would have been achieved through 

BART controls alone at the EGUs. 

The 2017 progress report also 

addressed implementation of BART and 

alternatives to BART8 at Maryland’s 

two non-EGU BART eligible source 

specific units—Holcim Cement and 

Verso Luke Paper. In the BART analysis 

for Holcim’s Portland cement kiln in 

Hagerstown, Maryland, the State 

determined and EPA approved the 

addition of selective non-catalytic 

reduction (SNCR) as BART for PM and 

NOX and the previously installed 

controls as BART for SO2. See 77 FR 

11827 (February 28, 2012). The SIPapproved regulation, COMAR 26.11.30, 

pertaining to Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for the 2008 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS), establishes more 

stringent NOX limits for Portland 

Cement Plants in the State, including 

Holcim Cement. 83 FR 13192 (March 28, 

2018). As a result of the RACT 

requirements, Holcim upgraded its 

equipment in 2016 from a long-dry kiln 

to a pre-heater/pre-calciner kiln and 

installed a SNCR addressing BART 

requirements for NOX and PM. Holcim 

is required to meet a limit of 2.4 pounds 

(lbs) of NOX per ton of clinker on a 30- 

day rolling average effective April 1, 

2017. 

In June 2012, EPA approved BART 

emission limits for power boiler 25, a 

BART subject source, at the Verso Luke 

Paper Mill. 77 FR 39938 (June 13, 2012). 

In July 2017, EPA removed the 

previously approved BART 

requirements for SO2 and NOX from 

power boiler 25 (No. 25) and replaced 

them with new, alternative emission 

requirements as BART.9 EPA 

established an annual SO2 cap for power 

boiler 25 and approved alternative 

BART emission limits for SO2 and NOX

for power boiler 24 (No. 24): (1) A new 

BART emission limit of 0.28 pounds per 

million British thermal units (lbs/ 

mmBtu), measured as an hourly average 

for SO2; and (2) a new BART emission 

limit of 0.4 lb/mmBtu, measured on a 

30-day rolling average for NOX. 82 FR 

35451 (July 31, 2017). The BART PM 

limit on power boiler No. 25 remains at 

0.07 lb/MMBtu. 

Included in the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ and 

as a measure in the State’s 2012 regional 

haze SIP was a low-sulfur oil strategy. 

In 2014, Maryland adopted amendments 

to COMAR 03.03.05.04, ‘‘Specifications 

for No. 1 and No. 2 Fuel Oil.’’ The 

amendments, effective October 13, 2014, 

lowered the maximum allowable 

amount of sulfur in #1 and #2 fuel oil 

in two stages, from 3,000 to 2,000 parts 

per million (ppm) of sulfur in 2014, and 

then from 2,000 to 500 ppm of sulfur in 

2016. While this strategy does not meet 

the exact specifications or timeline of 

the ‘‘Ask,’’ MANE–VU left an option for 

flexibility in reducing SO2 emissions by 

implementing other strategies. In the 

2012 regional haze SIP, Maryland 

projected that the reductions achieved 

by implementing the HAA would 

greatly exceed projected reductions 

from fully implementing the ‘‘Ask’s’’ 

low-sulfur fuel oil strategy. Maryland 

stated it intends to submit this 

regulation, COMAR 03.03.05.04, for 

future SIP approval. 

In the 2017 progress report, Maryland 

also mentions EPA approved for the 

Maryland SIP amendments adopted into 

COMAR 26.11.38, ‘‘Control of NOX

emissions from Coal-Fired Electric 

Generating Units,’’ which addresses the 

2012 regional haze SIP measure to 

evaluate other control methods to 

reduce SO2 and NOX. 82 FR 24546 (June 

29, 2017). For 13 coal-fired EGUs in the 

state, Maryland asserts this regulation 

establishes a system-wide emissions rate 

of 0.15 lbs/mmBtu on a 30-day rolling 

average during the ozone season for 

NOX emissions at all coal-burning EGUs 

owned by the same company. An 

additional requirement in COMAR 

26.11.38 to optimize controls is 

monitored by compliance with a 24- 

hour block emissions limit during ozone 

season for each coal-burning EGU. 

Although COMAR 26.11.38 is 

specifically designed to reduce ozone 

impacts by reducing NOX emissions, 

Maryland stated in the 2017 progress 

report that it believes that this 

regulation benefits visibility in nearby 

Class I areas because NOX is a visibility 

impairing pollutant as well as a 

precursor to ozone. 

EPA finds that Maryland’s analysis in 

its 2017 progress report adequately 

addresses the applicable provisions 

under 40 CFR 51.308(g), as the State 

demonstrated the implementation of 

control measures in the Maryland 

regional haze SIP and in the MANE–VU 

‘‘Ask.’’ 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g) also require the state to 

provide analysis of emissions trends of 

visibility-impairing pollutants from the 

state’s sources by type or category over 

the past five years based on the most 

recent updated emissions inventory. In 

Section 4 of the 2017 progress report, 

Maryland provided an assessment of the 

following visibility impairing 

pollutants: SO2, NOX, volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), and fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) by category. MANE–VU 

and Maryland determined that SO2

emissions are the most significant 

pollutant impacting regional haze in 

MANE–VU Class I areas, therefore, the 

bulk of visibility improvement was 

expected to result from reductions in 

SO2 emissions from sources inside and 

outside of the State. The emissions 

reductions data in Table 1 demonstrates 

that NOX, SO2, VOC, and PM2.5

emissions have decreased from 

Maryland’s baseline emissions in 2002 

to 2014, the last year for which a 

comprehensive national emission 

inventory (NEI) is available. 

TABLE 1—EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN MARYLAND BY SECTOR IN 1,000 TONS PER YEAR (tpy) 

Sector Pollutant 2002 2014 Percent 

reductions 

Point ..................................................................................................................... NOX 104.56 27.00 74 

PM2.5 30.16 10.90 64 

SO2 320.76 49.43 85 

VOC 12.54 4.11 67 

Non-Road ............................................................................................................ NOX 58.35 31.13 47 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
43574 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

10Maryland was identified as influencing the 

visibility impairment of the following Class I areas: 

Acadia National Park, Brigantine National Wildlife 

Refuge, and Lye Brook Wilderness Area as well as 

the Dolly Sods Wilderness, Otter Creek Wilderness, 

and Shenandoah National Park. 

11 VISTAS is a collaborative effort of state 

governments, tribal governments, and various 

federal agencies established to initiate and 

coordinate activities associated with the 

management of regional haze, visibility and other 

air quality issues in the Southeastern United States. 

Member States and Tribes include: the States of 

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Virginia, and West Virginia and the Eastern Band 

of the Cherokee Indians. 

TABLE 1—EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN MARYLAND BY SECTOR IN 1,000 TONS PER YEAR (tpy)—Continued 

Sector Pollutant 2002 2014 Percent 

reductions 

PM2.5 4.54 2.58 43 

SO2 16.65 4.47 73 

VOC 56.73 27.61 51 

On-Road .............................................................................................................. NOX 167.38 61.64 63 

PM2.5 5.79 2.15 63 

SO2 4.96 0.52 90 

VOC 65.77 30.27 54 

Area ..................................................................................................................... NOX 12.79 12.64 1 

PM2.5 16.48 11.77 29 

SO2 11.12 5.94 47 

VOC 120.08 47.10 61 

To assess emissions reductions from 

air pollution control measures being 

implemented between the baseline 

period and 2018, MANE–VU developed 

emissions projections for 2018 for the 

first round of regional haze SIPs. 

Section 4 of Maryland’s 2017 progress 

report details emission trends from 2002 

to 2014 and compares the trends to 

MANE–VU’s projections of 2018 

inventories that were included in 

Maryland’s 2012 regional haze SIP. 

Maryland asserts in its 2017 progress 

report and EPA finds that emissions of 

SO2, NOX, VOC and PM2.5 for all sectors 

show a downward trend from 2002 

through 2014. The 2014 NEI data shows 

SO2, VOC and PM2.5 emissions 

significantly below the projected 2018 

totals in all categories. NOX emissions 

declined steeply between 2002 and 2014 

largely due to point source and on-road 

emission reductions. Maryland states in 

the 2017 progress report that the overall 

reductions in all pollutants and 

downward trends far outweigh minimal 

increases in any sector in years between 

the baseline and 2018, and the increases 

do not inhibit the State’s ability to 

improve visibility, reduce emissions of 

NOX and SO2, and continue to make 

progress toward the overall regional 

haze goals. Section 4 of Maryland’s 2017 

progress report also analyzes emissions 

in the MANE–VU region. Overall hazeimpacting emissions have declined and 

are projected to continue to decline. 

Maryland concludes that the general 

decline in pollutants in the region 

indicate that changes in anthropogenic 

emissions have not and will not impede 

progress to improving visibility or Class 

I areas meeting their RPGs. 

EPA finds Maryland has adequately 

addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g) relating to emission 

reductions and emission trends. 

Maryland detailed the SO2 and NOX

reductions in Maryland from the 2002 

regional haze baseline to 2014, the most 

recently available year of data at the 

time of the development of Maryland’s 

2017 progress report, discussed overall 

emission trends for all visibilityimpacting pollutants, and discussed the 

implementation of regional haze SIP 

measures including BART. EPA agrees 

with Maryland’s conclusion that it is 

reasonable to conclude anthropogenic 

emissions will not impede progress to 

improving visibility in the region given 

the large overall reductions in pollutant 

emissions, particularly in SO2 emissions 

in the State and in the Mid-Atlantic 

region. 

The provisions under 40 CFR 

51.308(g) also require states with Class 

I areas within their borders to provide 

information on current visibility 

conditions and the difference between 

current visibility conditions and 

baseline visibility conditions expressed 

in terms of five-year averages of those 

annual values. Maryland does not have 

any Class I areas; however, the 2017 

progress report provided visibility 

condition data to support the 

assessment that the regional haze SIP is 

sufficient to enable other states to meet 

the RPGs for Class I areas affected by 

Maryland. 

Seven Class I areas in the MANE–VU 

and Visibility Improvement State and 

Tribal Association of the Southeast 

(VISTAS) Regional Planning 

Organizations (RPOs) 10 are impacted by 

sulfate emissions from Maryland’s 

sources, as was stated in the State’s 

2012 regional haze SIP submission 

which EPA approved in July 2012.11 77 

FR 39938. The Interagency Monitoring 

of Protected Visual Environments 

(IMPROVE) monitoring program 

provides data on the air pollutants that 

contribute to regional haze. Maryland’s 

2017 progress report included 

IMPROVE visibility data for each Class 

I area in the region which is impacted 

by Maryland sources and addresses the 

progress from the baseline 2000–2004 

five-year average visibility to the 2011– 

2015 five-year average visibility for all 

affected Class I areas. Table 2 shows 

IMPROVE visibility data and shows the 

progress from the baseline period to the 

most recent averaging period and the 

RPG for each Class I area. 

TABLE 2—OBSERVED VISIBILITY VS. REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS

Class I area IMPROVE site 

2000–2004 

5-year 

average 

2011–2015 

5-year 

average 

Met 2018 

RPG already? 2018 RPG 

20% Haziest Days 

Acadia National Park ....................................................................................... 22.9 17.4 Yes 19.4 

Brigantine Wilderness ...................................................................................... 29.0 22.6 Yes 25.1 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 43575 

12The West Virginia 5-year progress report 

submittal states that the IMPROVE monitor in Dolly 

Sods is a surrogate for Otter Creek. See 80 FR 32019 

(June 5, 2015). 

TABLE 2—OBSERVED VISIBILITY VS. REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS—Continued 

Class I area IMPROVE site 

2000–2004 

5-year 

average 

2011–2015 

5-year 

average 

Met 2018 

RPG already? 2018 RPG 

Great Gulf/Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness ..................................... 22.8 16.4 Yes 19.1 

Lye Brook Wilderness ...................................................................................... 24.4 18.0 Yes 20.9 

Moosehorn Wilderness/Roosevelt Campobello International Park ................. 21.7 16.8 Yes 19.0 

Dolly Sods Wilderness/Otter Creek 12 ............................................................. 29.5 21.2 Yes 21.7 

Shenandoah National Park .............................................................................. 29.3 20.7 Yes 21.9 

20% Clearest Days 

Acadia National Park ....................................................................................... 8.8 6.9 Yes 8.3 

Brigantine Wilderness ...................................................................................... 14.3 12.0 Yes 14.3 

Great Gulf/Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness ..................................... 7.7 5.7 Yes 7.2 

Lye Brook Wilderness ...................................................................................... 6.4 5.3 Yes 5.5 

Moosehorn Wilderness/Roosevelt Campobello International Park ................. 9.2 6.9 Yes 8.6 

Dolly Sods Wilderness ..................................................................................... 12.3 8.2 Yes 11.1 

Shenandoah National Park .............................................................................. 10.9 7.9 Yes 8.7 

EPA notes the substantial progress 

made in the IMPOVE visibility data, as 

the Class I areas affected by emissions 

from Maryland have already achieved 

and surpassed the 2018 RPGs set in the 

first regional haze SIPs in the MidAtlantic and Northeast regions. Class I 

areas affected by emissions from 

Maryland have current visibility 

conditions better than baseline 

conditions and better than RPGs. 

EPA finds Maryland provided the 

required information regarding visibility 

conditions and implementation of all 

measures included in the State’s 

regional haze SIP to meet the 

requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g), 

specifically providing baseline visibility 

conditions (2000–2004), current 

conditions based on the most recently 

available IMPROVE monitoring data 

(2011–2015), and an assessment of the 

change in visibility impairment at its 

Class I areas. 

As stated, Maryland does not have 

any Class I areas; therefore, Maryland is 

not required to monitor for visibilityimpairing pollutants. Maryland’s 

visibility monitoring strategy relies 

upon Class I areas’ participation in the 

IMPROVE network; however, Maryland 

stated that it does intend to maintain the 

IMPROVE site at Frostburg Reservoir. 

EPA finds Maryland has adequately 

addressed the requirements for a 

monitoring strategy for regional haze 

and finds no further modifications to 

the monitoring strategy are necessary. 

In its 2017 progress report, Maryland 

concludes the elements and strategies 

relied on in its regional haze SIP are 

sufficient to enable neighboring states to 

meet all established RPGs. As shown in 

Table 2 above, visibility on least— 

impaired and most—impaired days from 

2000 through 2014 has improved at all 

Class I areas affected by emissions from 

Maryland. In addition, all Class I areas 

impacted by Maryland’s emissions have 

met their RPGs. EPA therefore finds 

Maryland has adequately addressed the 

provisions for its progress report in 40 

CFR 51.308(g). 

B. Determination of Adequacy of 

Existing Regional Haze Plan 

In the 2017 progress report, Maryland 

submitted a negative declaration to EPA 

regarding the need for additional actions 

or emission reductions in Maryland 

beyond those already in its regional 

haze SIP to address the requirement for 

a determination of adequacy in 40 CFR 

51.308(h). Maryland determined the 

existing regional haze SIP requires no 

further substantive revision at this time 

to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas 

affected by the State’s sources. The basis 

for the State’s negative declaration is 

that visibility has improved at all Class 

I areas impacted by Maryland’s sources 

in the MANE–VU and VISTAS regions. 

In addition, there has been a significant 

downward trend in emissions of NOX, 

SO2, VOC, and PM2.5 from the baseline 

year for Maryland’s regional haze SIP 

(2002) to the latest emission inventory 

for Maryland in 2014. In addition, SO2, 

VOC, and PM2.5 emissions are 

significantly below the 2018 totals 

projected in Maryland’s 2012 regional 

haze SIP submittal. 

EPA concludes that Maryland has 

adequately addressed the provisions 

under 40 CFR 51.308(h) because 

visibility and emission trends indicate 

that Class I areas impacted by 

Maryland’s sources are meeting or 

exceeding the RPGs for 2018, and expect 

to continue to meet or exceed the RPGs 

for 2018. Thus, EPA finds Maryland’s 

negative declaration (i.e., that the 

existing regional haze SIP requires no 

further substantive revision to achieve 

goals for visibility improvement and 

emission reductions) reasonable and in 

accordance with requirements in 40 

CFR 51.308(h). 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Maryland’s 2017 progress report, 

submitted on August 9, 2017, as meeting 

the applicable CAA requirements in 

section 110 and meeting regional haze 

requirements set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(g) and 51.308(h). 

IV. 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 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.); 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
43576 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1An example of such a rule is as follows: A 

person shall not discharge from any source 

whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or 

other material which cause injury, detriment, 

nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number 

of persons or to the public or which endanger the 

comfort, repose, health or safety of any such 

persons or the public or which cause or have a 

natural tendency to cause injury or damage to 

business or property. 

• 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 to 

approve Maryland’s 2017 progress 

report 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 15, 2018. 

Cosmo Servidio, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18526 Filed 8–24–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0133; FRL–9982– 

76—Region 9] 

Air Plan Revisions; California; 

Technical Amendments 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to delete 

various local rules from the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) that 

were approved in error. These rules 

include general nuisance provisions, 

certain federal performance 

requirements, hearing board procedures, 

variance provisions, and local fee 

provisions. The EPA has determined 

that the continued presence of these 

rules in the SIP is potentially confusing 

and thus problematic for affected 

sources, the state, local agencies, and 

the EPA. The intended effect of this 

proposal is to delete these rules to make 

the SIP consistent with the Clean Air 

Act. The EPA is also proposing to make 

certain other corrections to address 

errors made in previous actions taken by 

the EPA on California SIP revisions. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

September 26, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2018–0133 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Kevin Gong, at gong.kevin@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be removed or edited 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3073, gong.kevin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Why is the EPA proposing to correct the 

SIP? 

II. What is the EPA’s authority to correct 

errors in SIP rulemakings? 

III. Which rules are proposed for deletion? 

IV. What other corrections is the EPA 

proposing to make? 

V. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Why is the EPA proposing to correct 

the SIP? 

The Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) 

was first enacted in 1970. In the 1970s 

and early 1980s, thousands of state and 

local agency regulations were submitted 

to the EPA for incorporation into the SIP 

to fulfill the new federal requirements. 

In many cases, states submitted entire 

regulatory air pollution programs, 

including many elements not required 

by the Act. Due to time and resource 

constraints, the EPA’s review of these 

submittals focused primarily on the new 

substantive requirements, and we 

approved many other elements into the 

SIP with minimal review. We now 

recognize that many of these elements 

were not appropriate for approval into 

the SIP. In general, these elements are 

appropriate for state and local agencies 

to adopt and implement, but it is not 

necessary or appropriate to make them 

federally enforceable by incorporating 

them into the applicable SIP. These 

include: 

A. Rules that prohibit emissions 

causing general nuisance or annoyance 

in the community.1 Such rules address 

local issues but have essentially no 

connection to the purposes for which 

SIPs are developed and approved, 

namely the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1