[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12771]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 25, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[MD 26-2-6081; FRL-4887-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; New Source Review Regulations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval/disapproval action of the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of
Maryland. This revision establishes and requires major new and modified
sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides
(NOx) to meet the new source requirements which include the
installation of Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) technology and
to obtain emission offsets. The intended effect of this action is to
propose limited approval of new source review requirements for major
new and modified sources in Maryland for the limited purpose of
strengthening the Maryland SIP which currently has regulations which do
not meet the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. In addition, this
action is intended to propose disapproval of Maryland Regulations COMAR
26.11.17 for the limited purpose of allowing Maryland the opportunity
to correct the deficiencies in the regulations which result in its
failure to meet all requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This
action is being taken in accordance with the provisions of section 110
of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 24, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Thomas J. Maslany, Director, Air,
Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the Air, Radiation,
and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107; and Maryland
Department of the Environment, 2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore,
Maryland, 21224.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia H. Stahl, (215) 597-9337, at
the EPA Region III address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 8, 1993, the Maryland Department of
the Environment submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan
(SIP) pertaining to requirements for major new and modified sources of
VOC and NOx applicable statewide.
The revision consists of modifications to COMAR 26.11.01.01
(Definitions), 26.11.02 (Permits, Approvals and Registration) sections
.03, .09-.11, and .18, and an entirely new regulation, COMAR 26.11.17
(Requirements for Major New Sources and Modifications). The
modifications to COMAR 26.11.01.01 remove a portion of the definition
of ``modification'' which was inconsistent with the Federal definition
contained in 40 CFR 51.165, EPA's guidance to states on new source
requirements. In addition, Maryland introduces the term ``Major New
Source Requiring Approval (MNSRA)'' which is defined as a major
stationary source or major modification subject to requirements in
COMAR 26.11.17. COMAR 26.11.17 is an entirely new regulation in
Maryland meant to replace its previous new source requirements which
were located in COMAR 26.11.06.11, General Emission Standards,
Prohibitions and Restrictions-New Source Impacting on a Nonattainment
Area (NSINA) Prohibition for Areas III and IV. The proposed revisions
to the Maryland SIP were submitted in response to the requirements of
the Clean Air Act, as amended on November 15, 1990. The only
nonattainment areas in Maryland are those designated nonattainment for
ozone and those designated nonattainment for carbon monoxide. The Clean
Air Act requires that all states which have areas designated
nonattainment for ozone or carbon monoxide (CO), or states located in
the Ozone Transport Region, to submit to EPA, by November 15, 1992 or
November 15, 1993, respectively, a revision to their SIPs which would
require major new and major modified sources of those pollutants to
meet new source requirements.
Background
Federal Requirements
According to section 172(c)(5), state implementation plans must
require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified
major stationary sources. The statutory permit requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas are generally contained in revised section 173, and
in subpart 2 of part D. EPA is planning to update its new source review
rule for nonattainment areas in 40 CFR 51.165 and 52.24 in accordance
with the Clean Air Act, as amended on November 15, 1990. At that time,
states, including Maryland, will be expected to evaluate their new
source regulations in accordance with those new source rules and revise
their regulations accordingly.
The requirements for new sources in nonattainment areas under
sections 172, 173, 182, and 184 of the Act, include the following:
a. According to section 173(a)(1), provisions in the state
regulation to assure that calculations of emissions offsets are based
on the same emissions baseline used in the demonstration of RFP.
b. According to section 173(c)(1), states may include provisions
which allow offsets to be obtained in another nonattainment area if the
area has an equal or higher nonattainment classification and emissions
from the other nonattainment area contribute to a NAAQS violation in
the area in which the source would construct.
c. According to section 173(c)(1), provisions in the state
regulation that any emissions offsets obtained in conjunction with the
issuance of a permit to a new or modified source must be in effect and
enforceable by the time the new or modified source commences operation.
This statutory condition for offsets augments the existing requirement
under section 173 that provides that offsets must be federally-
enforceable before permit issuance, although the required emissions
reductions need not occur until the date on which the new or modified
source commences operations.
d. According to section 173(c)(1), provisions in the state
regulation to assure that emissions increases from new or modified
sources must be offset by real reductions in actual emissions. EPA's
initial guidance interpreting general sections of the Clean Air Act is
contained in the title I General Preamble published in the Federal
Register on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498). In the General Preamble, EPA
reiterated that emission increases and decreases for netting are to be
determined consistent with EPA's current new source rules and the
December 4, 1986 emissions trading policy statement (51 FR 43823). In
addition, pre-enactment reductions are expected to be treated as new
source growth, even though, for applicability purposes, the source's
net emissions change is de minimis. EPA's current new source rules
state that a decrease in emissions is only creditable if, among other
requirements, the decrease has not been relied upon by the state for
any permit, attainment demonstration, or reasonable further progress.
Therefore, emission reductions made because of RACT or other
requirements which have been taken into account in the state's
demonstration of reasonable further progress or attainment
demonstration are not creditable for netting purposes.
e. According to section 173(c)(2), provisions in the state
regulation to prevent emission reductions otherwise required by the Act
from being credited for purposes of satisfying part D offset
requirements.
f. According to section 173(a)(5), provisions in the state
regulation that, as a prerequisite to issuing any part D permit,
require an analysis of alternative sites, sizes, production processes,
and environmental control techniques for proposed sources that
demonstrate that the benefits of the proposed source significantly
outweigh the environmental and social costs imposed as a result of its
location, construction, or modification.
g. According to section 328, provisions in the state regulation to
assure that sources located on the OCS are subject to the same
requirements applicable if the source were located in the corresponding
onshore area.
h. Provisions in the state regulation to assure that owners or
operators of each proposed new or modified major stationary source
demonstrate the compliance of all other major stationary sources under
the same ownership in the State.
i. Provisions in the state regulation defining major new and major
modified sources in accordance with the area's nonattainment
classification under section 181 for ozone and section 186 for CO.
j. Provisions in the state regulation requiring emission offsets
for major new and major modified sources in accordance with the area's
nonattainment classification under section 181 for ozone and section
186 for CO.
k. Provisions in the state regulation requiring all applicable new
source requirements for sources locating in the Ozone Transport Region.
For a severe or extreme ozone nonattainment area located in the
transport region, the major stationary source size thresholds
applicable to those areas apply for VOC and, presumptively, for
NOx. These provisions must also ensure that new or modified major
stationary sources obtain VOC and, presumptively, NOx offsets at a
ratio of at least 1.15 to 1 in order to obtain an NSR permit. Higher
offset ratios apply in areas classified as serious or above.
l. Provisions in the state regulation to ensure that any new or
modified major stationary source of NOx satisfies the requirements
applicable to any new or modified major stationary source of VOC,
unless a special NOx exemption is granted by the Administrator
under the provision of section 182(f).
m. For serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas, state plans
must implement sections 182(c)(6), (7) and (8) with regard to
modifications.
Nonattainment Area Requirements as They Pertain to Maryland
The Clean Air Act requirements under section 182, as they pertain
to new sources in Maryland, specify that major sources in the Baltimore
severe ozone nonattainment area (Baltimore City, Baltimore, Anne
Arundel, Carroll, Harford, and Howard Counties) and in the Maryland
portion of the Philadelphia severe ozone nonattainment area (Cecil
County, Maryland) be defined as those whose potential emissions of VOC
are greater than or equal to 25 tons per year (TPY). In addition, major
sources in the Washington DC serious ozone nonattainment area (Calvert,
Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince George's Counties) are
defined as those whose potential emissions of VOC are greater than or
equal to 50 TPY. Section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act also requires that
wherever sources of VOC are required to be controlled, nitrogen oxide
(NOx) sources of the same size thresholds are required to be
controlled. Therefore, in the Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Washington
DC ozone nonattainment areas, NOx sources which have the potential
to emit greater than or equal to 25 TPY, 25 TPY, and 50 TPY,
respectively, are required to be subject to new source requirements.
Section 184 of the Clean Air Act also establishes, by operation of law,
the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), consisting of the states of
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area that includes the District
of Columbia. The section 182 ozone nonattainment area requirements
applicable to moderate ozone nonattainment areas apply, at a minimum,
in those areas located in the OTR. Section 184(b)(2) requires, however,
that instead of the 100 TPY major source threshold required in moderate
areas outside the OTR, major sources in the OTR be defined as those
with potential emissions of 50 tons of VOC per year or more. Therefore,
the remaining counties in Maryland which are designated attainment for
ozone but are located in the OTR, are required to apply new source
requirements to sources of VOC which have the potential to emit at
least 50 tons of VOC per year. The Maryland counties which are
designated attainment but are located in the OTR are: Allegany,
Caroline, Dorchester, Garrett, Kent, Queen Anne's, Somerset, St.
Mary's, Talbot, Washington, Wicomico, and Worcester Counties. In these
areas, the CAA's 50 ton threshold for VOC does not apply and the major
NOx sources are defined as those which have the potential to emit
at least 100 tons of NOx per year.
For its carbon monoxide nonattainment area, Maryland is required to
define a major source of CO as one which has the potential to emit at
least 100 tons of CO per year. Installation of LAER and emission
offsets at a greater than 1 to 1 ratio are required for major new or
major modified sources.
EPA Analysis
Maryland's proposed changes to COMAR 26.11.01.01, Definitions, and
26.11.02 primarily relate to inserting the new term for major sources,
``Major New Source Requiring Approval (MNSRA)'' and deleting the old
term, ``New Source Impacting on a Nonattainment Area (NSINA)''. The new
term and definition are consistent with the Act.
One substantive change made in COMAR 26.11.01.01 was to delete the
portion of the definition of ``Modification'' which would consider an
increase in hours of operation or in production rate as a modification
unless those increases are prohibited under any permit or approval
conditions ``adopted by the Department.'' The Federal definition
specifically excludes increases in hours of operation or in production
rate from being considered a modification for new source applicability
purposes unless those increases are prohibited under any federally
enforceable condition. Maryland's definition of ``Modification''
clarifies that the permits and approvals are those that are federally
enforceable, rather than just those adopted by the Department.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the ``Modification'' definition
in COMAR 26.11.01.01. EPA is also proposing to approve the other
changes to COMAR 26.11.01.01 and 26.11.02. COMAR 26.11.02.18 contains a
permit fee schedule for new or modified sources which Maryland has
requested not be included as part of the SIP approval. Therefore, EPA
is proposing to approve COMAR 26.11.02, with the exception of .18.
Maryland's new proposed regulation, COMAR 26.11.17, contains the
applicability criteria for determining what sources would be considered
major new or major modified sources for the purposes of applying new
source requirements. This regulation generally meets the requirement
pertaining to baseline consistency with the RFP demonstration by
requiring all sources to treat emission reductions which occurred prior
to January 1, 1991 as not creditable.
COMAR 26.11.71.04 E provides that emissions reductions achieved by
shutting down an existing source or permanently curtailing production
or operating hours below baseline levels are creditable if the
reductions are permanent, quantifiable, and federally enforceable, and
only if such reductions occurred on or after January 1, 1991. However,
existing EPA regulations also provide that if a state does not have an
EPA-approved attainment demonstration, then post-January 1, 1991
reductions achieved by a shutdown or curtailment of production or
operating hours are only creditable if the state is current in its
attainment planning obligations. See 54 FR 27286 (June 28, 1989). EPA's
current rules also require that even in nonattainment areas with
approved attainment demonstrations, only those shutdown or curtailment
credits generated after the date of permit application are creditable.
See 40 CFR part 51, appendix S. Therefore, EPA is proposing a limited
disapproval of COMAR 26.11.17 for the purpose of allowing Maryland the
opportunity to correct this provision by adding a requirement that in
the absence of an approved attainment demonstration, Maryland must be
current in it attainment planning obligations in order for post-January
1, 1991 shutdown reductions to be creditable, and to clarify that only
post-application reductions are creditable.
EPA will be seeking comments in its 40 CFR parts 51 and 52
rulemaking on whether there is a need, in light of the revised baseline
date in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, to revisit the
fundamental policies underlying the limitation on the use of shutdown
and curtailment credits for areas without approved attainment
demonstrations. These policies are reflected in EPA's current
regulation at Sec. 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C), that were the subject of two
earlier rulemakings in 1980 and 1989. See 45 FR 52676 (August 7, 1980)
and 54 FR 27274 (June 28, 1989). EPA notes that the Clean Air Act
Advisory Committee may independently review concerns about the effect
of the NSR program on industrial growth in nonattainment areas. These
concerns include the crediting and availability of, among other things,
emissions offsets. In particular, EPA is taking comments on whether the
current policy on the use of shutdown credits unevenly impacts urban
vs. suburban areas, including issues related to urban sprawl, commuting
patterns, and demographics. Upon final EPA rulemaking on parts 51 and
52, Maryland will have to amend its rule to the extent such amendment
is required to make its new source review rule consistent with that
final rulemaking.
In addition, all sources located in the Maryland portion of the
Philadelphia ozone nonattainment area and in the Baltimore and
Washington DC ozone nonattainment areas, as well as sources located in
the remainder of the state which are one of the sources in the source
categories listed in 40 CFR part 51, appendix S, are required to
include fugitive emissions ``to the extent quantifiable'' in the
calculation of potential emissions. EPA understands the definition of
fugitive emissions, as provided for in the Maryland regulations, and as
here modified by the phrase ``to the extent quantifiable, to mean that
emissions that could reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or
other functionally equivalent opening are not fugitive for NSR
applicability threshold calculation purposes, regardless of whether
those emission actually pass through a stack, etc. See e.g., 40 CFR
51.166(b)(19). For example, an enclosed facility may have numerous VOC
emission points none of which is individually vented. If those
emissions reasonably could be individually vented or vented
collectively through one or more stacks in this roof of the building,
those emissions would not be fugitive within the meaning of the
Maryland regulations and must be considered in determining whether the
source is major for NSR purposes. In determining whether emissions
could pass through a stack, etc..., ``reasonableness'' is to be broadly
construed. Thus, for any source category subject to a national standard
under sections 111 and 112 that requires collection and/or venting of
emissions points, emission from such sources are not fugitive, because
the collection/venting requirement in that standard is deemed to be
reasonable. Likewise, if the Maryland SIP or a permit issued by the
state requires collection/venting of certain emissions, this creates a
presumption that similar emissions from any other source in that
category could also reasonably pass through a stack, etc., and,
therefore, should not be considered fugitive.
COMAR 26.11.17.04 F. establishes the criteria for the location of
VOC or NOx offsets such that offsets must be obtained from the
same ozone nonattainment area, as close to the proposed new source as
possible, and may be obtained from another ozone nonattainment area if
that area is of an equal or higher classification and if the emissions
from this area contributes to a violation in the nonattainment area of
the proposed new source. This provision is consistent with the
requirements of the Act.
COMAR 26.11.17.01 contains requirements that emissions offsets for
proposed major new sources or major modified sources be obtained no
later than the time of commencement of construction of the major new or
major modified source. COMAR 26.11.17.05 requires that these emission
offsets be state and federally enforceable by the new source's ``start-
up date.'' Section 173 of the CAA provides, however, that offsets are
to be federally-enforceable before the permit may be issued, even
though such offsets need actually occur no later than the date the new
source would commence operations. Therefore, EPA is proposing a limited
disapproval of COMAR 26.11.17 for the purpose of allowing Maryland to
correct this provision so as to provide for Federal-enforceability of
offsets before permit issuance.
COMAR 26.11.17.04 establishes the baseline for offsets as the
actual emissions in the preceding 1 or 2 year period, or some other
period approved by the Department if more representative of normal
source operations, but not to exceed the SIP emission limitations. The
effect of this requirement is to establish the baseline for offsets as
the lower of actual or SIP allowable emissions. Sources with no
applicable SIP limitation are required to use actual emissions as the
baseline. Sources with SIP emission limitations that exceed their
uncontrolled emissions must use the SIP emission limitations as the
baseline. The Maryland regulation does not satisfy the Clean Air Act
requirement that emission reductions otherwise required by the Act are
not creditable for part D offsets. Therefore, EPA is proposing a
limited disapproval of COMAR 26.11.17 so that Maryland can correct this
deficiency by modifying its regulation by specifically stating that
only those emission reductions not otherwise required by the Act are
creditable for emission offsets required by this regulation.
With regard to emission decreases which are creditable for netting,
Maryland's regulation contains the condition that emission decreases
are only creditable if, among other requirements, they have not been
relied upon by the state for any permit, attainment demonstration, or
reasonable further progress. COMAR 26.11.17.01, pertaining to netting
calculations, clearly requires emission reductions to be real so that
actual emission reductions are obtained. Therefore, the Maryland
regulation satisfies the current Federal requirements for netting.
COMAR 26.11.17.03 requires sources to perform an analysis of
alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and environmental
control techniques in order to demonstrate that the benefits of the
proposed source significantly outweigh the environmental and social
costs imposed as a result of its location, construction or
modification. COMAR 26.11.17.03 also requires all sources owned and
operated by the proposed new source's applicant to be in compliance
with all applicable emission limitations or in compliance with an
approved federally enforceable compliance plan. COMAR 26.11.17.01 (5)
defines building, structure, facility or installation as including
those activities on the outer continental shelf to the extent required
by and consistent with section 328 of the Act. EPA is proposing to
approve these three provisions as they meet the Act's requirements.
Maryland's regulation defines major new and major modified sources
of VOC and NOx (for ozone nonattainment areas and areas located in
the OTR) and CO consistent with the requirements of the Act. Emission
offset ratios for each of these pollutants, consistent with the Act,
are also required. The Maryland regulation pertaining to applicability
and emission offsets for ozone nonattainment areas and in the OTR is,
however, not completely clear in indicating that a source which emits
both VOC and NOx is potentially subject to new source requirements
for both VOC and NOx. A source emitting both VOC and NOx
determines applicability of VOC requirements by individually summing
its VOC emissions and comparing such sum to the major source size
threshold for VOC or the significance levels for VOC for major
modifications. This source would also be required to individually sum
its NOx emissions and determine applicability by comparing this
sum to the major source size threshold for NOx or the significance
levels for NOx for major modifications. Likewise, VOC and NOx
sources which are required to obtain emission offsets must obtain
offsets of the same type of pollutant (i.e. VOC for VOC and NOx
for NOx). Maryland may choose to retain the applicability
determination to sum both VOC and NOx emissions at a source to
determine new source applicability since this is more stringent than
the Federal requirements. Maryland must, however, require that emission
offsets are obtained for the same pollutant as that which is increased.
For this reason, EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of COMAR
26.11.17 in order to allow Maryland the opportunity to clarify the
applicability and the creditability of emission offsets.
The Maryland regulation also states that nothing in the regulation
itself is meant to conflict with sections 182(c)(7) and (8) of the
Clean Air Act. These two sections of the Act pertain to de minimis
provisions which would allow sources located in serious or severe ozone
nonattainment areas to opt out of Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
(LAER) technology if they obtain 1.3 to 1 internal offsets. Maryland
has chosen to incorporate the requirements of section 182(c)(6),
pertaining to determining de minimis levels in serious and severe ozone
nonattainment areas, into its regulation at COMAR 26.11.17.01. Until
EPA issues its new source rule, the Maryland regulation as written is
approvable. As mentioned earlier, when EPA issues its new source rule,
Maryland will be expected to evaluate its regulation for consistency
with that rule and make any appropriate changes to its regulation.
Maryland's proposed regulation also appropriately defines major new
carbon monoxide sources to obtain LAER and emission offsets at a
minimum of 1.1 to 1 in CO nonattainment areas. These nonattainment
areas are defined in 40 CFR 81.321 and located in the Baltimore and
metropolitan Washington DC areas. EPA is proposing to approve these CO
provisions, as they meet the Act's requirements.
Because of the above deficiencies, pertaining to applicability
determinations, emission offset calculations, and eligibility of
emission reduction credits, EPA cannot grant full approval of this rule
under section 110(k)(3) and part D. Also, because the submitted rule is
not composed of separable parts which meet all the applicable
requirements of the CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval of the rule
under section 110(k)(3). However, EPA may grant a limited approval of
the submitted rule under section 110(k)(3) in light of EPA's authority
pursuant to section 301(a) to adopt regulations necessary to further
air quality by strengthening the SIP. The approval is limited because
EPA's action also contains a simultaneous limited disapproval, due to
the fact that the rule does not meet the section 182(a)(2)(A)
requirement of part D because of the noted deficiencies. Thus, in order
to strengthen the SIP, EPA is proposing a limited approval of
Maryland's submitted COMAR 26.11.01.01 and 26.11.17 under section
110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA.
At the same time, EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of
the Maryland new source rule because it contains implementation
problems and deficiencies which result in less than the full population
of required major new sources to be regulated, and, as such, the rule
does not fully meet the requirements of part D of the Act. Under
section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a submission under
section 110(k) for an area designated nonattainment, based on the
submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements required by
the Act, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions set forth in
section 179(b) unless the deficiency has been corrected within 18
months of such disapproval. Section 179(b) provides two sanctions
available to the Administrator: Highway funding and offsets. The 18
month period referred to in section 179(a) will begin at the time EPA
publishes final notice of this disapproval. Moreover, the final
disapproval triggers the 24-month Federal implementation plan (FIP)
requirement under section 110(c).
EPA's review of this material indicates that COMAR 26.11.01.01,
COMAR 26.11.17.02, .09-.11 are fully approvable. EPA is proposing to
approve COMAR 26.11.17 for the limited purpose of strengthening the
Maryland SIP with respect to new source requirements in nonattainment
areas and areas located in the ozone transport region. EPA is also
proposing a limited disapproval of COMAR 26.11.17 for the limited
purpose of allowing Maryland the opportunity to correct the above-
identified deficiencies in the regulation so that the regulation can
meet Clean Air Act requirements. If Maryland corrects the specific
deficiencies cited above and submits the corrected regulation to EPA
prior to the final rulemaking action, EPA intends to take final action
on the June 8, 1993 submittal and the subsequent submittal which
corrects the Maryland new source regulation, without another proposal.
Of course, in the event that the parts 51 and 52 rulemaking is
finalized prior to final action on this submittal, Maryland's new
source review regulations may be subject to reproposal. Further
discussion of the Maryland new source review regulation is contained in
the accompanying technical support document. 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.
Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the COMAR 26.11.01.01, 26.11.02.
sections .03, .09-.11, and COMAR 26.11.17 (with the exception of
26.11.17.18), pertaining to new source review requirements in
nonattainment areas and in the ozone transport region. At the same
time, EPA is also proposing to disapprove COMAR 26.11.17 for the
limited purpose of allowing Maryland to correct deficiencies in the
regulation such that the Act's requirements can be met.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C.603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
This action has been classified as a Table 2 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by
an October 4, 1993 memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation. A future document will inform the
general public of these tables. On January 6, 1989, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) waived Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions
(54 FR 2222) from the requirements of section 3 of Executive Order
12291 for a period of two years. The USEPA has submitted a request for
a permanent waiver for Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions. The OMB has agreed
to continue the waiver until such time as it rules on USEPA's request.
This request continues in effect under Executive Order 12866, which
superseded Executive Order 12291 on September 30, 1993.
The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove this SIP
revision, pertaining to Maryland's new source review regulations, will
be based on whether it meets the requirements ofsection 110(a)(2)(A)-
(K), and part D of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA regulations
in 40 CFR part 51.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: March 1, 1994.
Stanley L. Laskowski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 94-12771 Filed 5-24-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
