[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 20, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38836-38838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-18358]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD063-3023a; FRL-6379-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maryland--Fuel Burning Equipment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision does not change 
current requirements. The intended effect of this action is to approve 
a change in the terms used in the text of a regulation to more 
accurately reflect its intended purpose to exempt fuel burning 
equipment, not installations, from certain general requirements 
pertaining to sulfur oxides (SOx) . EPA is approving these 
revisions to the Maryland SIP in accordance with the requirements of 
the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 20, 1999 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by August 19, 1999. 
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: Written comments should be mailed to Makeba 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; the Air and 
Radiation Docket and

[[Page 38837]]

Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, 
SW, Washington, DC 20460; and Maryland Department of the Environment, 
2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, Maryland 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Artra B. Cooper at (215) 814-2096, or 
by e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On February 6, 1998, the State of Maryland submitted a formal 
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision 
consists of a technical amendment to the text of COMAR 26.11.06.05--
Sulfur Compounds from Other than Fuel Burning Equipment, to more 
accurately reflect the applicability of the regulation. The amendment 
changes the term ``fuel burning installation'' to ``fuel burning 
equipment.''

Summary of SIP Revision

    The SIP revision consists of a technical amendment that corrects 
the text of COMAR 26.11.06.05--Sulfur Compounds from Other than Fuel 
Burning Equipment. The correction removes the term ``fuel burning 
installations'' and replaces it with ``fuel burning equipment.'' The 
intent of the regulation is to exempt fuel burning equipment (boilers) 
from the provisions found in COMAR 26.11.06.05 because these units are 
specifically regulated under COMAR 26.11.09--Control of Fuel Burning 
Equipment, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines and Certain Fuel 
Burning Installations. This SIP revision simply clarifies the 
applicability of COMAR 26.11.06.05 and does not change any current 
emission standards.
    EPA is approving this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's 
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should 
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective on September 20, 
1999 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments 
by August 19, 1999. If EPA receives adverse comment, then 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 should do so at this time.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving administrative amendments to clarify the 
applicabilty of COMAR 26.11.06.05--Sulfur Compounds from Other than 
Fuel Burning Equipment, as submitted by the Maryland Department of the 
Environment on February 6, 1998.

III. 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.

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. 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

[[Page 38838]]

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 
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 action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 20, 1999. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
pertaining to technical amendments to COMAR 26.11.06.05, Sulfur 
Compounds from Other than Fuel Burning Equipment 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: July 8, 1999.
Thomas 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 52.1070 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(129) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (129) Revisions to the State of Maryland Regulations COMAR 
26.11.06.05--Sulfur Compounds from Other than Fuel Burning Equipment 
submitted on February 6, 1998 by the Maryland Department of the 
Environment:
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letter of February 6, 1998 from the Maryland Department of the 
Environment transmitting amendments to Code of Maryland Administrative 
Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.06.05--Sulfur Compounds from Other than Fuel 
Burning Equipment.
    (B) Revision to COMAR 26.11.06.05--Sulfur Compounds from Other than 
Fuel Burning Equipment, effective September 22, 1997 to replace the 
term ``installations'' with the term ``equipment'' throughout the 
regulation.
    (ii) Additional Material.--Remainder of February 8, 1998 submittal.

[FR Doc. 99-18358 Filed 7-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P