Document ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0607-0008
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Maryland
Posted Date: 2006-10-24T12:24:54Z

[Federal Register: October 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 205)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 62210-62212]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24oc06-8]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0607; FRL-8233-2]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maryland; State Implementation Plan Revision for American Cyanamid 
Company, Havre de Grace, MD

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 November 24, 2006.

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 http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 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.

[[Page 62211]]

Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
through http://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, PA 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.

II. 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-

[[Page 62212]]

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 December 26, 2006. 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 52

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

    Dated: October 16, 2006.
William Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as 
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

     Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing 
the entry for American Cyanamid Co.

 [FR Doc. E6-17795 Filed 10-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P