Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0607-0009
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-10-24T04:00Z

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0607; FRL-       ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Maryland; State Implementation Plan Revision for American Cyanamid
Company,

Havre de Grace, Maryland

AGENCY:	Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:	Final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Maryland. The intended effect of this action
is to remove an August 2, 1984 Secretarial Order (Order) from the
Maryland SIP.  The Order constituted a Plan for Compliance (PFC) and an
alternative method of assessing compliance at an American Cyanamid
Company (Company) facility located in Havre de Grace, Harford County,
Maryland (the Facility).  The Order allowed for certain volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions sources at the Facility to achieve compliance
with emissions limits through averaging (or “bubbling”) of emissions
over a 24-hour period.  Removal of the Order from the SIP will remove
the “bubbling” compliance option for these sources at the Facility. 
In lieu of “bubbling,” the sources must comply with the approved and
more stringent Maryland SIP provisions for the control of VOC emissions,
which do not allow averaging or “bubbling.” This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). 

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This final rule is effective on [insert date 30 days
from date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID Number EPA R03-OAR-2006-0607.  All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov website.   Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy 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. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment,
1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland.

 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Bigioni, (215) 814-2781, or by
e-mail at bigioni.neil@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  

I.	Background	

On August 23, 2006 (71 FR 49393), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland.  The NPR proposed approval
of a SIP revision to remove the Order from the Maryland SIP.  The formal
SIP revision was submitted by Maryland on May 17, 2006.  	

The Order was approved into the Maryland SIP in a final rule published
on May 16, 1990 (55 FR 20269).  The Order provided the Company with a
PFC and an alternative method of assessing compliance for certain
installations located at the Facility by allowing the averaging or
“bubbling” of the emissions of VOC over a 24-hour period.  By
allowing “bubbling” of VOC emissions the Company could over-control
emissions at some units and under control at other units such that the
overall emissions from the sources collectively would be the same as
those that would be achieved utilizing traditional control strategies at
each source.  The VOC sources where “bubbling” was allowed at the
Facility were components of the Facility’s paper and fabric adhesive
coating operation, and included Towers 2, 3, and 5 and the FM-1000
coater/dryer.  

Summary of SIP Revision

Removal of the Order from the SIP will subject the VOC emissions sources
at the Facility that were formerly subject to the “bubbling”
provisions of the Order to the Maryland VOC regulations and limits
codified at Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR)  26.11.19.07.  Those
COMAR regulations are part of the Maryland SIP. (65 FR 2334, January 14,
2000).  The materials submitted by Maryland in support of the SIP
revision indicate that the Facility currently intends to comply with the
SIP-approved VOC limits by reducing VOC emissions through use of a
regenerative thermal oxidizer, as allowed by COMAR
26.11.19.02B(2)(b)(ii) and the Maryland SIP (68 FR 9012, February 27,
2003).  This SIP revision will remove the current ability for the
current owner of the Facility, Cytec Engineered Materials, Inc., to
comply with VOC emissions limits for the sources subject to the Order
through averaging or “bubbling” of VOC emissions.  The SIP-approved
limits codified at COMAR 26.11.19.07C do not allow for compliance
through averaging/”bubbling.”  The applicable COMAR 26.11.19.07C
limits of 2.9 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating as applied (minus
water), are also more stringent than  the emissions limit of 3.2 pounds
of VOC per gallon of coating as applied (minus water) imposed by the
Order.  No public comments were received on the NPR.

III.	Final Action

EPA is approving the removal of the August 2, 1984 Secretarial Order as
a revision to the Maryland SIP.  

IV.   Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A.   General Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action
is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget.  For this reason, this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).  This action merely approves state law
as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.  Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).  Because this rule approves pre-existing
requirements under state law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain
any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4).   This rule also does not have tribal implications
because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).  This action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).  This
action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.  This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks( (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant.  

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA(s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to
use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS.  It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act.  Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.  This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B.   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.  Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of
rules: (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties.  5 U.S.C. 804(3).   EPA is not
required to submit a rule report regarding today(s action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability establishing
source-specific requirements for a named source.

C.  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 [insert date 60 days from date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register].  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 approving the removal of the August 2, 1984
Secretarial Order as a revision to the Maryland SIP may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.  (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds 

____________________				__________________________________    

Dated:  October 16, 2006      				William Wisniewski, 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.  In ( 52.1070, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing the
entry for American Cyanamid Co.

 PAGE   

 PAGE  7 

 PAGE   8