[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 236 (Wednesday, December 9, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67780-67782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32577]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MD055-3021; FRL-6199-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Stage II Vapor Recovery Comparability Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision
concerns a plan which demonstrates that the emissions reductions of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) required in ozone attainment and
marginal ozone nonattainment areas in Maryland are comparable to the
reductions which would be achieved by Stage II vapor recovery (Stage
II) in those same areas. EPA is approving the Stage II comparability
plan in the State of Maryland in accordance with the Clean Air Act (the
Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on February 8, 1999, without further
notice unless EPA receives adverse written comment by January 8, 1999.
Should EPA receive 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: Written comments should be mailed to Makeba A. Morris,
Chief, Technical Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP22, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available 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; and Maryland
Department of the Environment, 2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore
Maryland 21224.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth E. Knapp, (215) 814-2191, or by
e-mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On November 5, 1997, the State of Maryland submitted a formal
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision
consists of a demonstration of how control measures already being
implemented are achieving comparable emission reductions as would be
achieved by a Stage II vapor recovery program. Section 184(b) of the
Act requires states in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) to implement
control measures that achieve emission reductions comparable to
implementing Stage II, or to implement a Stage II program. This
requirement applies in all areas not already required to implement
Stage II based on their ozone nonattainment classification. All areas
in Maryland that are classified as serious ozone nonattainment areas or
above have already implemented the Stage II program. As the entire
State of Maryland is within the OTR, the Stage II comparability
requirement applies in all of its ozone attainment areas and marginal
ozone nonattainment areas.
Summary of SIP Revision
On November 5, 1997, the State of Maryland submitted a formal
revision to its SIP. The SIP revision consists of an explanation of the
VOC emission reductions required by control measures comparable to
Stage II vapor recovery in Maryland's marginal ozone
[[Page 67781]]
nonattainment areas and ozone attainment areas. Therefore, the
implementation of Stage II or comparable VOC measures are required in
Allegany, Caroline, Dorchester, Garrett, Kent, Queen Anne's, Somerset,
St. Mary's, Talbot, Washington, Wicomico, and Worcester Counties.
Maryland projects that implementing Stage II in these areas would
result in emission reductions of approximately 3.03 tons per day (Stage
II Comparability Study for the Northeast Ozone Transport Region (EPA-
452/R-94-011)). However, in a letter to EPA dated March 13, 1997,
Maryland opted to satisfy the Act requirements for Stage II by adopting
other control strategies to achieve emission reductions comparable to
those from implementing Stage II. Maryland has implemented the
following regulations to achieve comparable reductions:
1. COMAR 26.11.19.09 Cold and Vapor Degreasing, adopted effective
June 5, 1995 (62 FR 41853, August 4, 1997).
2. COMAR 26.11.19.11 Lithographic Printing, adopted effective May
8, 1991 (62 FR 46199, September 2, 1997).
3. COMAR 26.11.19.18 Screen Printing, adopted effective November 7,
1994 (62 FR 53544, October 15, 1997).
4. COMAR 26.11.19.19 Expandable Polystyrene Operations, adopted
effective July 3, 1995 (62 FR 53544, October 15, 1997).
5. COMAR 26.11.19.23 Vehicle Refinishing, adopted effective May 22,
1995 (62 FR 41853, August 4, 1997).
The projected VOC emissions reductions from these measures are
listed below, and these reductions total more than Maryland's
projection for emission reductions from Stage II.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 total
projected
Control strategy emission
reduction
(tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Degreasing................................................. 2.08
Auto Refinishing........................................... 0.57
Lithographic and Screen Printing........................... 0.47
Expandable Polystyrene Operations.......................... 0.27
Total.................................................. 3.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is publishing this Stage II comparability plan without prior
proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment
and anticipates no adverse comments. 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 February 8,
1999 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comments by
January 8, 1999. If EPA receives adverse comment, 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.
II. Final Action
EPA is approving the Stage II vapor recovery comparability plan for
the State of Maryland for Allegany, Caroline, Dorchester, Garrett,
Kent, Queen Anne's, Somerset, St. Mary's, Talbot, Washington, Wicomico,
and Worcester Counties.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Orders 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from review under E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 12875
Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to
provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the
extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected
state, local, and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns,
copies of written communications from the governments, and a statement
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875
do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), applies to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is
``economically significant,'' as defined under Executive Order 12866,
and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule
has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it
is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866, and it does not address an environmental health
or safety risk that would have a disproportionate effect on children.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of
Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian
tribal governments. This action does not involve or impose any
requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements
of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
[[Page 67782]]
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This final rule will
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities
because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of
the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of
a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the
economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA
to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co.
v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must
select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory
requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
G. 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 rule 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. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
H. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 8, 1999. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Approval of this Stage II vapor recovery comparability plan allows
the State of Maryland to achieve comparable reductions in VOC emissions
from control measures other than Stage II.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone.
Dated: November 30, 1998.
Thomas C. Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart V--Maryland
2. Section 52.1076 is amended by revising the section heading, by
designating the existing paragraph as (a), and adding a paragraph (b)
to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1076 Control strategies: ozone
* * * * *
(b) EPA approves as a revision to the Maryland State Implementation
Plan, the Stage II vapor recovery comparability plan for the counties
of Allegany, Caroline, Dorchester, Garrett, Kent, Queen Anne's,
Somerset, St. Mary's, Talbot, Washington, Wicomico, and Worcester
Counties submitted by the Maryland Department of the Environment on
November 5, 1997.
[FR Doc. 98-32577 Filed 12-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P