98-32577. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Stage II Vapor Recovery Comparability Plan  

  • [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 knapp.ruth@epamail.epa.gov.
    
    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
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
2/8/1999
Published:
12/09/1998
Department:
Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Direct final rule.
Document Number:
98-32577
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.
Pages:
67780-67782 (3 pages)
Docket Numbers:
MD055-3021, FRL-6199-3
PDF File:
98-32577.pdf
CFR: (1)
40 CFR 52.1076