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

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 [email protected].

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