[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44574-44578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-21435]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD124-3075; FRL-7043-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maryland; Volatile Organic Compound Control Requirements for Aerospace 
Coating Operations and Kraft Pulp Mills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revisions submitted by the State of Maryland. These revisions establish 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements to reduce 
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from aerospace coating 
operations and kraft pulp mills. The intended effect of this action is 
to propose approval of two regulations to reduce VOC emissions from 
aerospace coating operations and kraft pulp mills. This action is being 
taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 24, 
2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief, 
Air Quality Planning and Information Services 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; 
and the Maryland Department of the Environment, 2500 Broening Highway, 
Baltimore, Maryland.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristeen Gaffney, (215) 814-2092, or 
via e-mail at [email protected]. Please note that while 
questions may be posed via telephone and e-mail, formal comments must 
be submitted, in writing, as indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this 
document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 2, 2001, the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) 
requested that EPA parallel process the approval of two proposed or 
draft state regulations as SIP revisions. These regulations control VOC 
emissions from (1) aerospace coating operations and (2) kraft pulp 
mills. The draft regulations impose RACT requirements for the control 
of VOC emissions at affected installations. To expedite the approval of 
these regulations as revisions to the Maryland SIP, EPA is using the 
parallel rulemaking process to propose approval of Maryland's 
regulations concurrently with the State's own process and procedures 
for adopting these regulations.
    Maryland is adopting and submitting these regulations pursuant to 
the RACT requirements of sections 182 and 184 of the Clean Air Act (the 
Act). Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires states to implement RACT on 
all source categories for which EPA has issued a Control Techniques 
Guideline (CTG) document and for all ``major'' sources of VOCs located 
in moderate or above ozone nonattainment areas. Major VOC sources are 
those with the potential to emit at least 50 tons per year in moderate 
and serious areas and 25 tons per year in severe areas. In addition, 
section 184(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires states in the Ozone Transport 
Region (OTR) to require RACT on all sources in the state that have the 
potential to emit 50 tons per year or more of VOC. Because Maryland is 
in the OTR, the State is required to implement RACT regulations for all 
major sources statewide.

II. Description of Maryland's SIP Revisions and EPA's Evaluation

    On July 2, 2001, the MDE submitted a request to EPA to parallel 
process two draft/proposed regulations as revisions to the SIP: (1) 
Revisions to COMAR 26.11.19.13-1 for the control of VOC emissions from 
aerospace coatings operations; and (2) revisions to COMAR 26.11.14.06 
to control of VOCs from

[[Page 44575]]

kraft pulp mills. Both of these regulations apply statewide.

A. Aerospace Coating Operations

Summary of the State Regulation
    COMAR 26.11.19.13-1 establishes RACT standards to control VOC 
emissions from aerospace coating operations statewide that emit 20 
pounds or more of VOCs per day. The coating application and cleaning 
processes are the significant sources of VOC emissions from aerospace 
facilities. Maryland's regulation establishes maximum allowable VOC 
contents for generally used topcoats, primers and chemical milling 
maskants as well as for 57 types of specialty coatings used 
specifically in the aerospace industry. In addition to VOC content 
limits, facilities subject to this regulation must comply with good 
maintenance and cleanup requirements that include: (1) Storing all VOC 
containing waste materials in closed containers; (2) maintaining lids 
on containers of surface preparation and cleanup materials when not in 
use; and (3) using enclosed containers or VOC recycling equipment to 
clean spray gun equipment.
    Under Maryland's regulation, subject facilities are required to use 
the testing and compliance methods and coating averaging procedures 
specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG, ``National Emissions Standards 
for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities''. Specifically, 
affected facilities are subject to methods of compliance for VOC 
content limits found in subsections 63.745(a)-(e), 63.747(a)-(e) and 
63.750, as applicable, and which are incorporated by reference into 
COMAR 26.11.19.13-1. Subject facilities are required to keep monthly 
records that contain the description, volume, total weight and VOC 
content of each coating used. Records must be maintained for three 
years and made available to the State upon request.
EPA's Evaluation
    In September 1999, EPA adopted 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG, National 
Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities 
(Aerospace NESHAP). The Aerospace NESHAP requires existing and new 
major source aerospace facilities to control emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants, many of which are also VOCs, to the level achievable 
through maximum achievable control technology (MACT) consistent with 
section 112(d) of the Act. The control techniques required by the 
Aerospace NESHAP result in reductions of VOC emissions.
    Additionally, in December 1997, EPA issued a Control Technique 
Guideline (CTG) document, ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound 
Emissions from Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 
Operations' to provide guidance to the states in determining VOC RACT 
for the aerospace industry. The Aerospace CTG establishes EPA's 
recommended level of presumptive RACT for the control of VOC emissions 
from primer, topcoat and specialty coatings applications, maskant 
application, sealing and cleaning operations. The CTG does not 
recommend add-on emissions control devices as RACT for the aerospace 
coatings industry. According to the Aerospace CTG, the principal 
technique used by the aerospace industry to control VOC emissions from 
coating applications and cleaning is product substitution. VOC 
emissions are controlled when products containing high concentrations 
of VOC are replaced with those having reduced or eliminated VOC. The 
CTG describes available product substitutions for coatings and cleaning 
solvents. Presumptive RACT for coatings used on aerospace components 
and vehicles are based on VOC content. The Aerospace NESHAP sets limits 
for maximum HAP and VOC content for topcoats, primers, maskants, clean-
up solvents and cleaning operations and the CTG recommends these same 
content limits as presumptive RACT limits for VOCs. Furthermore, the 
CTG recommends VOC content limits for 57 specialty coatings, which are 
not covered in the Aerospace NESHAP. The Aerospace NESHAP specifies 
detailed requirements for monitoring, testing, record keeping and 
reporting.
    Maryland's aerospace regulation reflects the appropriate 
combination of the Aerospace NESHAP and the Aerospace CTG. The VOC 
coating content limits in Maryland's regulation for topcoats, primers 
and maskants are the same as those in the Aerospace NESHAP. Maryland's 
regulation also adopts the VOC content limit for the 57 specialty 
coatings recommended in the Aerospace CTG. The complete list of VOC 
content limits for all coating categories are shown below. Maryland's 
regulation contains definitions for each coating type with a specified 
limit. The allowable VOC content is expressed in both pounds per gallon 
and grams per liter of coating applied minus water.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Pounds/gallon
                     Coating type                        (grams/liter)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topcoats.............................................          3.5 (420)
Self-priming topcoat.................................          3.5 (420)
Primers..............................................          2.9 (350)
Chemical Milling Maskants............................          1.3 (160)
Exterior primer for large commercial aircraft........          5.4 (650)
Primer for general aviation rework facilities........          4.5 (540)
Specialty Coatings:
    Ablative Coating.................................          5.0 (600)
    Adhesion Promotor................................         7.42 (890)
Adhesive Bonding Primers:
    (Cured at 250 degrees F or below)................         7.09 (850)
    (Cured above 250 degrees F)......................        8.59 (1030)
    Antichafe Coating................................         5.50 (660)
    Bearing Coating..................................         5.17 (620)
    Bonding Maskant..................................      10.26 (1,230)
    Caulking and Smoothing Compounds.................         7.09 (850)
    Chemical Agent-Resistant Coating.................         4.58 (550)
    Clear Coating....................................         6.00 (720)
    Commercial Exterior Aerodynamic Structure Primer.         5.42 (650)
    Commercial Interior Adhesive.....................         6.34 (760)
    Compatible Substrate Primer......................         6.50 (780)
    Corrosion Prevention Compound....................         5.92 (710)

[[Page 44576]]

 
    Critical Use and Line Sealer Maskant.............       8.51 (1,020)
    Cryogenic Flexible Primer........................         5.38 (645)
    Cryoprotective Coating...........................         5.00 (600)
    Cyanoacrylate Adhesive...........................       8.51 (1,020)
    Dry Lubricative Material.........................         7.34 (880)
    Electric or Radiation-Effect Coating.............         6.67 (800)
    Electrostatic Discharge and Electromagnetic               6.67 (800)
     Interference (EMI) Coating......................
    Elevated-Temperature Skydrol-Resistant Commercial         6.17 (740)
     Primer..........................................
    Epoxy Polyamide Topcoat..........................         5.50 (660)
    Fire-Resistant (interior) Coating................         6.67 (800)
Flexible Primer......................................         5.34 (640)
Flight-Test Coatings Missile or Single Use Aircraft..         3.50 (420)
Flight-Test Coatings All Other.......................          7.0 (840)
Fuel Tank Adhesive...................................         5.17 (620)
Fuel Tank Coating....................................         6.00 (720)
High-Temperature Coating.............................         7.09 (850)
Insulation Covering..................................         6.17 (740)
Intermediate Release Coating.........................         6.25 (750)
Lacquer..............................................          6.9 (830)
Metallized Epoxy Coating.............................         6.17 (740)
Mold Release.........................................         6.50 (780)
Nonstructural Adhesive...............................         3.00 (360)
Optical Antireflective Coating.......................         6.25 (750)
Part Marking Coating.................................         7.09 (850)
Pretreatment Coating.................................         6.50 (780)
Rain Erosion-Resistant Coating.......................         7.09 (850)
Rocket Motor Bonding Adhesive........................         7.42 (890)
Rocket Motor Nozzle Coating..........................         5.50 (660)
Rubber-Based Adhesive................................         7.09 (850)
Scale Inhibitor......................................         7.34 (880)
Screen Print Ink.....................................         7.00 (840)
Extrudable/Rollable/Brushable Sealants...............         2.33 (280)
Sprayable Sealant....................................          5.0 (600)
Seal Coat Maskant....................................      10.26 (1,230)
Silicone Insulation Material.........................         7.09 (850)
Solid Film Lubricant.................................         7.34 (880)
Specialized Function Coating.........................         7.42 (890)
Structural Autoclavable Adhesive.....................          0.50 (60)
Structural Nonautoclavable Adhesive..................         7.09 (850)
Temporary Protective Coating.........................         2.67 (320)
Thermal Control Coating..............................         6.67 (800)
Wet Fastener Installation Coating....................         5.63 (675)
Wing Coating.........................................         7.09 (850)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Aerospace CTG also recommends good work practices and low VOC 
cleaning solvent composition to reduce emissions from solvent cleaning 
operations at aerospace facilities. Maryland's regulation contains 
adequate requirements to control fugitive VOC emissions associated with 
cleaning operations. For compliance (testing and monitoring), 
Maryland's regulation incorporates by reference the testing and 
compliance methods for VOCs in the Aerospace NESHAP. Maryland's 
regulation incorporates by reference the test methods and procedures 
for primers, topcoats and maskants found in 40 CFR 63.745, 63.747 and 
63.750. Maryland's rule also requires all facilities subject to the 
rule to maintain monthly records containing a description and the 
volume of each coating, the total weight and the VOC content of each 
coating used. Subject facilities must retain records for not less than 
three years and provide them to the Department upon request. Maryland's 
regulation contains adequate testing and record keeping requirements to 
determine compliance with the regulation.
    Maryland's proposed/draft regulation for the control of VOC 
emissions at aerospace coating operations (COMAR 26.11.19.13-1) meets 
the requirements of the Act and EPA guidance for implementing VOC RACT 
at aerospace coating installations and will result in the reduction of 
VOC emissions from the affected sources. EPA believes that the VOC 
control requirements of COMAR 26.11.19.13-1 constitute an acceptable 
level of RACT for aerospace coating operations.

B. Control of VOCs From Kraft Pulp Mills

Summary of the State Regulation
    COMAR 26.11.14 is being expanded to add a new subsection 
26.11.14.06 for the control of VOC emissions from kraft pulp mills. 
Existing sections of COMAR 26.11.14.01-.05 pertain to control 
requirements for total reduced sulfur compounds. Sections 
26.11.14.03-.05 are specific control requirements for total sulfur 
compounds. These sections are not part of Maryland's SIP revision 
request. Only the sections of COMAR 26.11.14 that pertain to the 
control of VOC emissions, specifically sections 26.11.26.14.01, .02 and 
.06 are being requested for approval as revisions to the SIP. Section 
26.11.14.01 contains definitions and section 26.11.14.02 covers 
applicability. New section 26.11.14.06 establishes RACT standards to 
control VOC emissions from kraft

[[Page 44577]]

pulp mill operations statewide that have actual emissions of 20 pounds 
or more of VOCs per day and the potential to emit total plant-wide VOC 
emissions of 25 tons or more per year.
    Kraft pulp mills are facilities that use an alkaline sulfide 
solution containing sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide for a cooking 
liquor in the wood pulping process. Maryland's regulation includes 
definitions for pulping processes and emissions streams, including 
definitions for: brown stock washers, black liquor, clean condensates, 
combusted, condensate, condensate steam stripper, digester, digester 
blow tank system, evaporator, foul condensates, knotters, recovery 
boiler and smelt dissolving tank. The VOC emissions emanate from the 
pulp, cooking liquors, condensates and non-condensable gases. The VOC 
emission sources at the facility include the digesters, washers, screen 
rooms, storage tanks, sewer vents, bleach rooms, black liquor oxidizer, 
recovery boilers and paper machines.
    Requirements to control VOC emissions are as follows. Condensates 
from the digester blow tank system and evaporators are to be treated in 
a condensate steam stripper or other control system with a 90 percent 
control efficiency. Condensates from the steam stripper and non-
condensable exhaust gases from the digester blow tank system and 
evaporator shall be collected and combusted in the boiler. Wash water 
for the brown stock washers and smelt dissolving tanks must use either 
fresh or clean water and/or clean condensates. A black liquor oxidation 
unit is required on the recovery boiler and at least 50 percent of the 
flue gas generated annually from the recovery boiler must be treated 
with a dry bottom precipitator with a salt cake mix tank. Fugitive VOC 
emissions from other miscellaneous processes at the installation will 
be controlled by processing pulp from the brown stock washers using 
clean condensates and fresh/clean wash water.
    Annual tests are required to demonstrate the VOC removal efficiency 
of the condensate steam stripper using EPA Test Method 25D found in 40 
CFR part 60. Other EPA approved VOC test methods 25, 25A or 25B shall 
be used to test other VOC emission streams. Installations are required 
to submit a test protocol to MDE for approval. Test results must be 
submitted to MDE within 60 days and retained for at least 5 years.
EPA Evaluation
    EPA has not issued a CTG on RACT for VOC emissions generated from 
kraft pulp mills. Maryland's regulation includes control requirements 
to reduce VOC emissions from specific processes including the digester 
blow tank system and brown stock washers, which requires the 
installation and use of a condensate steam stripper to remove and 
destroy condensates with a control efficiency of 90 percent. The VOC 
emissions from other processes at the facility will be controlled by 
requiring the use of only clean wash water which will reduce fugitive 
emissions throughout the entire facility. Other VOC emission streams, 
including noncondensable gases not stripped in the steam stripper, are 
collected and vented to the facilities combustion boilers for 
destruction. Maryland's regulation results in an estimated 50 percent 
reduction in VOC emissions from several process points throughout the 
facility. EPA believes the VOC control requirements of COMAR 
26.11.14.06 are reasonable and constitute and acceptable level of RACT 
for kraft pulp mill facilities. The regulation also contains adequate 
methods for determining compliance including EPA recommended test 
methods and record keeping requirements.
    EPA's review of this material indicates Maryland's regulations for 
the control of VOC emissions at aerospace coating operations and kraft 
pulp mills define an appropriate level of RACT, meet the requirements 
of sections 182 and 184 of the Clean Air Act and strengthen the 
Maryland SIP. EPA proposing to approve the Maryland SIP revisions for 
aerospace coating operations and kraft pulp mills, which were submitted 
on July 2, 2001.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions submitted by the State of 
Maryland on July 2, 2001 pertaining to RACT requirements to reduce VOC 
from aerospace coating operations (COMAR 26.11.19.13-1) and kraft pulp 
mills (COMAR 26.11.14.01, .02 and .06). EPA is soliciting public 
comments on the issues discussed in this document or on other relevant 
matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. 
Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure 
by submitting written comments to the EPA Regional office listed in the 
ADDRESSES section of this document. This revision is being proposed 
under a procedure called parallel processing, whereby EPA proposes 
rulemaking action concurrently with the state's procedures for amending 
its regulations. If the proposed revision is substantially changed, EPA 
will evaluate those changes and may publish another notice of proposed 
rulemaking. If no substantial changes are made, EPA will publish a 
Final Rulemaking Notice on the revisions. The final rulemaking action 
by EPA will occur only after the SIP revision has been adopted by 
Maryland and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.

IV. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any 
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does 
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have a substantial 
direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 
August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve 
state choices, provided that

[[Page 44578]]

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 
absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary 
consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP 
submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with 
applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in 
place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 
(61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has 
taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 
minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 
8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule 
in accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for 
the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued 
under the executive order. This proposed rule to approve RACT 
requirements to reduce VOC from aerospace coating operations and kraft 
pulp mills does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Ozone, Reporting and record-keeping requirements.

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

    Dated: August 17, 2001.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 01-21435 Filed 8-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P