[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 245 (Tuesday, December 22, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70667-70669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33841]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD068-3037; FRL-6202-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maryland; Control of Volatile Organic Compound From Sources That Store 
and Handle JP-4 Jet Fuel

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision establishes and 
requires volatile organic compound (VOC) emission control requirements 
for sources that store or handle JP-4 jet fuel. The intended effect of 
this action is to approve revisions to COMAR 26.11.13 into the Maryland 
SIP in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on January 21, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone and 
Mobile Sources Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, 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; the Air and Radiation Docket 
and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; and the Maryland Department of the 
Environment, 2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, Maryland 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristeen Gaffney at (215) 814-2092, or 
by e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 26, 1998, EPA published a direct 
final rule [63 FR 45397] approving Maryland's revisions to COMAR 
26.11.13, ``Control of Gasoline and Volatile Organic Compound Storage 
and Handling.'' The formal SIP revision was submitted by Maryland on 
March 31, 1998. In the August 26, 1998 direct final rulemaking, EPA 
stated that if adverse comments were received on the final approval 
within 30 days of its publication, EPA would publish a document 
announcing the withdrawal of its direct final rulemaking action. 
Because EPA received adverse comments on the direct final rulemaking 
within the prescribed comment period, EPA withdrew the August 26, 1998 
final rulemaking action on Maryland's revisions to COMAR 26.11.13. This 
withdrawal document appeared in the Federal Register on October 9, 1998 
[63 FR 54355]. A companion proposed rulemaking notice to approve 
Maryland's revisions to COMAR 26.11.13 was published in the Proposed 
Rules section of the August 28, 1998 Federal Register [63 FR 45443].

Response to Comments

    EPA received two letters commenting on the August 26, 1998 direct 
final rulemaking from Boeing and the Air Transportation Association of 
America. The letters requested that EPA further clarify the intent of 
Maryland's regulation and whether Maryland's regulation could be 
construed to apply to the commercial airline industry. The following 
discussion summarizes and responds to the comments received.
    Comment: Is it the EPA's intent that this regulation apply to all 
jet fuel storage and handling systems in Maryland, or only those that 
handle JP-4?
    Response: The Technical Support Document (TSD) submitted in support 
of Maryland's SIP revision request suggests that COMAR 26.11.13 is 
intended to apply to military installations that handle JP-4 jet fuel. 
According to the State, ``the purpose of the amendments to COMAR 
26.11.13 is to establish reasonably available control technology (RACT) 
requirements for the storage and handling of JP-4, a jet fuel and 
volatile organic compound (VOC).'' The State's TSD goes on to state 
that ``JP-4 is used as a fuel primarily in military aircraft.'' Under 
the section entitled ``Affected Industry in Maryland'', the TSD notes 
that the following facilities in Maryland store and handle jet fuels: 
Andrews Air Force Base, Patuxent Naval Air Station and Steuart 
Petroleum.
    COMAR 26.11.13 does not define the term ``jet fuel'' per se, but 
does define ``gasoline'' as follows: ``Gasoline means a petroleum 
distillate or alcohol, or their mixtures, having a true vapor pressure 
within the range of 1.5 to 11 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) 
(10.3 to 75.6 kilonewton/square meter) that is used as fuel for 
internal combustion engines or aircraft [emphasis added].'' According 
to the Maryland Department of Environment, JP deg.4 jet fuel has a 
vapor pressure of 1.6 psia at 70oF, and therefore, is defined as a 
gasoline under the regulation and subject to the rule's

[[Page 70668]]

provisions. By its intent, Maryland's regulation is not meant to apply 
to other jet fuels, whether for commercial or military use.
    Comment: EPA's proposed approval mistakenly intimates that JP-4 
includes all jet fuel. In so doing, it has effectively misstated the 
purpose of the amended Maryland regulation noting for example, without 
qualification, that the SIP revision is intended ``to establish VOC 
emission control requirements on sources that store and handle jet 
fuel.'' The approval should be clarified to recognize the distinction 
in the regulation between JP-4 and those jet fuels which were not 
intended to be the subject of the SIP revision because they do not 
possess volatility properties similar to gasoline.
    Response: In the SIP submittal, both Maryland's cover letter and 
TSD that accompanied the revisions to COMAR 26.11.13 state that the 
amendments establish RACT requirements for the storage and handling of 
JP-4, a jet fuel. EPA agrees that the statement referenced by the 
commenter may have been misleading by implying that this regulation 
applies to jet fuels other than JP-4. EPA agrees with the commenter 
that jet fuels that do not possess the volatility properties as defined 
in Maryland's definition of ``gasoline'' are not intended to be subject 
to the regulation.
    Comment: Clarification is requested that this rule does not apply 
to other jet fuels, specifically, JP-8, JET-A, JET-A1 and other 
commercially used jet fuels.
    Response: According to information supplied by the commenters, the 
referenced commercial jet fuels do not have vapor pressure properties 
that fall within the range of vapor pressure defined in Maryland's 
definition of ``gasoline.'' Based on this information, these fuels 
would not be subject to the provisions of COMAR 26.11.13. Furthermore, 
Maryland's TSD clearly states that this regulation applies to the 
storage and handling of JP-4 and not to JP-8. Other specific jet fuels 
are not mentioned in Maryland's TSD as being subject to the regulation.
    Other specific requirements of Maryland's SIP revision and the 
rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the August 26, 
1998 direct final rulemaking and will not be restated here.

Final Action

    EPA is approving the revisions to COMAR 26.11.13 into the Maryland 
SIP.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 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. 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

    E.O. 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 E.O. 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 E.O. 13045 because it is not an 
economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 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, Executive Order 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, Executive Order 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.
    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. 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

[[Page 70669]]

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 
annual 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 annual 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 approval of revisions to COMAR 26.11.13 must be 
filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit 
by February 22, 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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: December 7, 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.

    2. Section 52.1070 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(130) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (130) Revisions to the Maryland State Implementation Plan submitted 
on March 31, 1998 by the Maryland Department of the Environment.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letter of March 31, 1998 from the Maryland Department of the 
Environment transmitting revisions to Maryland's air quality regulation 
COMAR 26.11.13, pertaining to the control of VOC emissions from sources 
that store and handle JP-4 jet fuel adopted by the Secretary of the 
Environment on March 28, 1997 and effective August 11, 1997.
    (B) Revisions to COMAR 26.11.13.01(B)(4) the definition of 
``gasoline.''
    (ii) Additional Material: Remainder of March 31, 1998 Maryland 
State submittal pertaining to COMAR 26.11.13 control of VOCs from 
sources that store and handle JP-4 jet fuel.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-33841 Filed 12-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P