Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; New Source Review Regulations

[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