Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Control of VOCs From the Manufacture of Explosives and Propellant

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD079-3035a; FRL-6218-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Maryland; Control of VOCs From the Manufacture of Explosives and

Propellant

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision imposes reasonably

available control technology (RACT) requirements for volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) from sources that manufacture explosives and

propellant. The intent of this action is to approve Maryland's request

to amend its SIP to include RACT requirements to control VOCs from the

manufacture of explosives and propellant.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective without further notice on

March 29, 1999 unless by February 25, 1999, adverse or critical

comments are received by EPA. If EPA receives such comments, it will

publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal

Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone and

Mobile Sources Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, 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; the Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; and the Maryland Department of the

Environment, 2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, Maryland 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul T. Wentworth at (215) 814-2183,

or by e-mail at [email protected]. While information may be

requested via e-mail, comments must be submitted in writing to the

above EPA Region III address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On August 28, 1998, the State of Maryland submitted a formal

revision to its SIP, which consists of amendments to COMAR 26.11.19

Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes. The

revision consists of the addition of a new regulation at COMAR

26.11.19.25 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Explosives and

Propellant Manufacturing to establish RACT for VOCs from the

manufacture of explosives and propellant. This revision was submitted

to satisfy the requirements of sections 182 and 184 of the Clean Air

Act to implement RACT on major sources of VOCs.

[[Page 3853]]

II. Summary of the SIP Revision

The new regulation COMAR 26.11.19.25 Control of Volatile Organic

Compounds from Explosives and Propellant Manufacturing applies to

sources which manufacture explosives and propellant. The carrier for

some of the raw materials used in the manufacture of explosives and

propellant and the medium in which those raw materials are mixed

contain VOCs. The majority of the VOC emissions are from the mixing and

drying operations. The only currently known existing source of VOC

emissions from the manufacture of explosives and propellant is located

at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Indian Head, Maryland.

COMAR 26.11.19 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific

Processes applies statewide as does COMAR 26.11.19.25. The specific

provisions found in COMAR 26.11.19.25 Control of Volatile Organic

Compounds from Explosives and Propellant Manufacturing are summarized

below:

A. Applicability

This regulation applies to a person who owns or operates existing

equipment at a premise that has a potential to emit 25 tons or more of

VOC per year from all explosives and propellant manufacturing equipment

at the premises.

It also applies to a person who constructs, owns, or operates new

equipment that has or will have total actual VOC emissions of 50 pounds

or more per day. It must be noted that the applicability provisions of

COMAR 26.11.19.25 pertaining to new equipment are imposed in addition

to any applicable new source review (NSR) permitting requirements of

the Federal Clean Air Act and the Maryland SIP. These provisions of

COMAR 26.11.19.25 do not replace any applicable NSR requirements.

B. Definitions

COMAR 26.11.19.25 includes definitions of the following terms:

Existing equipment, Explosives and propellant manufacturing equipment,

New equipment, and Nitramine propellant manufacturing equipment.

C. General Requirements

Pursuant to COMAR 26.11.19.25 (C)(1), a person who owns or operates

existing explosives and propellant manufacturing equipment subject to

this regulation shall: (a) Install a VOC control device, having a VOC

destruction or removal efficiency of 85 percent or more overall, on all

active nitramine propellant mixing equipment that has a capacity of 150

gallons or more; (b) prepare and submit for approval by the Maryland

Department of the Environment by not later than September 1, 1997, a

good operating practices manual that when implemented will minimize VOC

emissions from all other existing explosive, propellant, and nitramine

propellant manufacturing equipment; and (c) implement the good

operating practices within 30 days after approval by the Department.

Pursuant to COMAR 26.11.19.25(C)(2), a person who constructs, owns,

or operates new equipment subject to this regulation shall reduce

emissions from the new equipment by 85% or more, overall. It must be

noted that these provisions of COMAR 26.11.19.25 pertaining to new

equipment are imposed in addition to any applicable new source review

(NSR) permitting requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act and the

Maryland SIP. These provisions of COMAR 26.11.19.25 do not replace any

applicable NSR requirements.

D. Reporting and Testing Requirements

A person who is subject to this regulation shall:

(1) By no later than October 1, 1997, submit to the Department:

(a) A VOC emissions inventory for calendar year 1990 and for each

subsequent year through calendar year 1996 for all explosive and

propellant manufacturing equipment at the premises, and

(b) Complete permit to construct application for the control device

required in subsection C(1)(a) of the regulation;

(2) Not later than 90 days after the control device required in

section C(1)(a) of this regulation has been installed must perform a

stack test to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of

subsection C of this regulation; and

(3) Submit to the Department a stack test report within 60 days

after completing the test.

EPA has determined that the control requirements contained in these

revisions to the subject rule constitutes an acceptable level of RACT

on major sources manufacture explosives and propellants. EPA is

approving this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views

this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal

Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will

serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse or

critical comments be filed. This rule will be effective March 29, 1999

without further notice unless by February 25, 1999, adverse or critical

comments are received. If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and informing the

public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received

will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed

rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Only

parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this

time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this

rule will be effective on March 29, 1999 and no further action will be

taken on the proposed rule.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving the addition of COMAR 26.11.19.25 Control of

Volatile Organic Compounds from Explosives and Propellant Manufacturing

submitted by the State of Maryland on August 28, 1998 as a revision to

the Maryland SIP.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 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. 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.

[[Page 3854]]

Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not

apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

E.O. 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 E.O. 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 E.O. 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory

action as defined by E.O. 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, Executive Order 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, Executive Order 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. 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

annual 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 annual 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 to approve COMAR 26.11.19.25 Control of

Volatile Organic Compounds from Explosives and Propellant Manufacturing

as a revision to the Maryland SIP must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 29, 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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: December 30, 1998.

Thomas 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 52.1070 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(141) to read

as follows:

[[Page 3855]]

Sec. 52.1070 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c)* * *

(141) Revisions to the Maryland State Implementation Plan submitted

on August 28, 1998 by the Maryland Department of the Environment.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter of August 28, 1998 from the Maryland Department of the

Environment transmitting revisions to COMAR 26.11.19 pertaining to the

control of VOCs from special processes. The revision adds a new

regulation at COMAR 26.11.19.25 for the control of VOC compounds from

explosives and propellant manufacturing adopted by the Secretary of the

Environment on July 15, 1997 and effective August 11, 1997.

(B) Revisions to COMAR 26.11.19 entitled Volatile Organic Compounds

from Specific Processes: The addition of new regulation COMAR

26.11.19.25 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Explosives and

Propellant Manufacturing.

(ii) Additional Material: Remainder of August 28, 1998 Maryland

State submittal pertaining to COMAR 26.11.19.25 to control VOCs from

sources that manufacture explosives and propellants.

[FR Doc. 99-1762 Filed 1-25-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P