Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; MarylandFuel Burning Equipment

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD063-3023a; FRL-6379-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Maryland--Fuel Burning Equipment

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 does not change

current requirements. The intended effect of this action is to approve

a change in the terms used in the text of a regulation to more

accurately reflect its intended purpose to exempt fuel burning

equipment, not installations, from certain general requirements

pertaining to sulfur oxides (SOx) . EPA is approving these

revisions to the Maryland SIP in accordance with the requirements of

the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 20, 1999 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by August 19, 1999.

If EPA receives 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 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; the Air and

Radiation Docket and

[[Page 38837]]

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

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

2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, Maryland 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Artra B. Cooper at (215) 814-2096, or

by e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On February 6, 1998, the State of Maryland submitted a formal

revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision

consists of a technical amendment to the text of COMAR 26.11.06.05--

Sulfur Compounds from Other than Fuel Burning Equipment, to more

accurately reflect the applicability of the regulation. The amendment

changes the term ``fuel burning installation'' to ``fuel burning

equipment.''

Summary of SIP Revision

The SIP revision consists of a technical amendment that corrects

the text of COMAR 26.11.06.05--Sulfur Compounds from Other than Fuel

Burning Equipment. The correction removes the term ``fuel burning

installations'' and replaces it with ``fuel burning equipment.'' The

intent of the regulation is to exempt fuel burning equipment (boilers)

from the provisions found in COMAR 26.11.06.05 because these units are

specifically regulated under COMAR 26.11.09--Control of Fuel Burning

Equipment, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines and Certain Fuel

Burning Installations. This SIP revision simply clarifies the

applicability of COMAR 26.11.06.05 and does not change any current

emission standards.

EPA is approving this rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no

adverse comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's

Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document

that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should

adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective on September 20,

1999 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments

by August 19, 1999. If EPA receives adverse comment, then EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the

public that the rule will not take effect. 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 should do so at this time.

II. Final Action

EPA is approving administrative amendments to clarify the

applicabilty of COMAR 26.11.06.05--Sulfur Compounds from Other than

Fuel Burning Equipment, as submitted by the Maryland Department of the

Environment on February 6, 1998.

III. 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. 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

[[Page 38838]]

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 must be filed in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 20, 1999. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule

pertaining to technical amendments to COMAR 26.11.06.05, Sulfur

Compounds from Other than Fuel Burning Equipment 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, Incorporation by

reference, Sulfur oxides.

Dated: July 8, 1999.

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 paragraphs (c)(129) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.1070 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(129) Revisions to the State of Maryland Regulations COMAR

26.11.06.05--Sulfur Compounds from Other than Fuel Burning Equipment

submitted on February 6, 1998 by the Maryland Department of the

Environment:

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter of February 6, 1998 from the Maryland Department of the

Environment transmitting amendments to Code of Maryland Administrative

Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.06.05--Sulfur Compounds from Other than Fuel

Burning Equipment.

(B) Revision to COMAR 26.11.06.05--Sulfur Compounds from Other than

Fuel Burning Equipment, effective September 22, 1997 to replace the

term ``installations'' with the term ``equipment'' throughout the

regulation.

(ii) Additional Material.--Remainder of February 8, 1998 submittal.

[FR Doc. 99-18358 Filed 7-19-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P