[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 7, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56220-56222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-27826]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD124-3084; FRL-7085-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maryland; Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Distilled 
Spirits Facilities, Aerospace Coating Operations and Kraft Pulp Mills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving 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 distilled spirits 
facilities, aerospace coating operations, and kraft pulp mills. The 
intended effect of this action is to approve three regulations that 
reduce VOC emissions from distilled spirits facilities, aerospace 
coating operations, and kraft pulp mills. This action is being taken 
under the Clean Air Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on December 7, 2001.

ADDRESSES: 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 Maryland 
Department of the Environment, 2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, 
Maryland, 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto, (215) 814-2182 and 
Kristeen Gaffney, (215) 814-2092, or via e-mail at 
[email protected] and [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   

I. Background

    On July 2, 2001, the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) 
requested that EPA parallel-process its approval of three proposed 
state regulations as revisions to the Maryland SIP. These regulations 
control VOC emissions from (1) distilled spirits facilities, COMAR 
26.11.19.29, (2) aerospace coating operations, COMAR 26.11.19.13-1, and 
(3) kraft pulp mills, COMAR 26.11.14.01, 26.11.14.02 and 26.11.14.06. 
These regulations impose RACT requirements for the control of VOC 
emissions at affected facilities in Maryland. EPA published its notices 
of proposed rulemaking (NPRs) to approve the aerospace coating and 
kraft pulp mills regulations on August 24, 2001 (66 FR 44574), and the 
distilled spirits facilities regulation on August 27, 2001 (66 FR 
44995), as revisions to the Maryland SIP.
    EPA proposed approval of Maryland's proposed regulations under a 
procedure called parallel-processing, whereby EPA proposes rulemaking 
action concurrently with the state's procedures for amending and/or 
adopting its regulations. These regulations have now been fully adopted 
by Maryland and were formally submitted to EPA for approval into the 
Maryland SIP on October 5, 2001. The adopted regulations were not 
changed from the proposed versions submitted for parallel-processing. 
The specific requirements of Maryland's regulations to control VOC 
emissions from distilled spirits facilities, aerospace coating 
operations, and kraft pulp mills; and the rationale for EPA's proposed 
actions are explained in the NPRs and will not be restated here. No 
public comments were received on the NPR pertaining to aerospace 
coating operations. EPA did receive comments on the NPRs pertaining to 
kraft pulp mills and distilled spirits facilities. They are not adverse 
comments which oppose EPA's approval of Maryland's regulations, but 
rather comments that request to make certain clarifications in its 
final rulemaking.

II. Comments and Responses

    Comment: EPA should make it clear that the terms and provisions of 
the kraft pulp mills and the distilled spirits facilities, for this 
rulemaking, only apply to the affected facilities in Maryland.
    Response: The terms and provisions of the Maryland's RACT 
regulations to control VOC emissions from kraft pulp mills and 
distilled spirits facilities, only apply to the affected facilities 
located in Maryland, namely Westvaco's Luke Mill (for kraft pulp mills) 
and Seagram Americas (for the distilled spirits facilities), 
respectively.
    Comment: It is not possible to control emissions of VOCs from aging 
houses from distilled spirits facilities.
    Response: Neither the proposed nor adopted version of Maryland's 
RACT to control VOC emissions from distilled spirits facilities 
requires that VOCs be controlled from the aging warehouses. The 
Maryland regulation is not to be construed to mean that the required 
good operating practices manual extends to the aging process at the 
affected facility in Maryland. There are, however, other emission 
sources at the affected facility in Maryland where fugitive VOC 
emissions can be minimized. The requirements of Maryland's distilled 
spirits facilities regulation to minimize VOC emissions by implementing 
good operating practices at fugitive emission sources, other than the 
aging warehouses, is unique to the affected facility in Maryland.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving revisions submitted by the State of Maryland on 
October 5, 2001 pertaining to RACT requirements to reduce VOC from 
distilled spirits facilities, COMAR 26.11.19.29; aerospace coating 
operations, COMAR 26.11.19.13-1; and kraft pulp mills, COMAR 
26.11.14.01, 26.11.14.02 and 26.11.14.06.

[[Page 56221]]

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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 approves 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 tribal implications because it will 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). 
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 
not 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). 
This action merely approves 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 rule 
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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 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. This rule does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. 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).

C. 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 January 7, 2002. 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 to approve Maryland's RACT regulations to 
control VOCs from distilled spirits facilities, aerospace coating 
operations, and kraft pulp mills, 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: October 9, 2001.
Donald S. Welsh,
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)(160), 
(c)(169) and (c)(170) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (160) Revisions to the Maryland Regulation, COMAR 26.11.19, 
Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes, submitted on 
October 5, 2001 by the Maryland Department of the Environment.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letter of October 5, 2001 from the Maryland Department of the 
Environment transmitting Maryland Regulation, COMAR 26.11.19.29, 
Control of Volatile Organic Compounds From Distilled Spirits 
Facilities.
    (B) Additions of COMAR 26.11.19.29, Control of Volatile Organic 
Compounds From Distilled Spirits Facilities, adopted by the State of 
Maryland on September 11, 2000 and effective October 2, 2000.
    (C) Revisions to COMAR 26.11.19.29, Control of Volatile Organic 
Compounds From Distilled Spirits Facilities, adopted by the State of 
Maryland on September 25, 2001 and effective October 15, 2001.
    (ii) Additional Materials--Remainder of the State submittals 
pertaining to the revisions listed in paragraphs (c)(160)(i)(B) and (C) 
of this section.
* * * * *
    (169) Revisions to the Maryland Regulation, COMAR 26.11.19, 
Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes, submitted on 
October 5, 2001 by the Maryland Department of the Environment.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letter of October 5, 2001 from the Maryland Department of the 
Environment transmitting Maryland Regulation, COMAR 26.11.19.13-1, 
Aerospace Coating Operations.
    (B) Addition of COMAR 26.11.19.13-1, Aerospace Coating Operations, 
adopted by the State of Maryland on September 11, 2000 and effective 
October 2, 2000.
    (C) Revisions to COMAR 26.11.19.13-1, Aerospace Coating Operations, 
adopted by the State of Maryland on September 25, 2001 and effective 
October 15, 2001.

[[Page 56222]]

    (ii) Additional Materials--Remainder of the State submittals 
pertaining to the regulations listed in paragraphs (c)(169)(i)(B) and 
(C) of this section.
    (170) Revisions to the Maryland Regulation, COMAR 26.11.14, Control 
of Emissions from Kraft Pulp Mills, submitted on October 5, 2001 by the 
Maryland Department of the Environment.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letter of October 5, 2001 from the Maryland Department of the 
Environment transmitting Maryland Regulations COMAR 26.11.14.01, 
26.11.14.02 and 26.11.14.06, Control of Emissions from Kraft Pulp 
Mills.
    (B) Additions of COMAR 26.11.14.01, COMAR 26.11.14.02 and COMAR 
26.11.14.06, Control of Emissions from Kraft Pulp Mills, adopted by the 
State of Maryland on December 13, 2000 and effective January 8, 2001.
    (C) Revisions to COMAR 26.11.14.01 and COMAR 26.11.14.06, Control 
of Emissions from Kraft Pulp Mills, adopted by the State of Maryland on 
September 25, 2001 and effective October 15, 2001.
    (ii) Additional Materials--Remainder of the State submittals 
pertaining to the revisions listed in paragraphs (c)(170)(i)(B) and (C) 
of this section.

[FR Doc. 01-27826 Filed 11-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P