Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirements for Marine Vessel and Barge Loading, 41268-41271 [E8-16272]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
41268
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 139 / Friday, July 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
that the Commission will address in the
future on a broader level.
In this docket, the Commission will
take a limited first step to add
transparency and facilitate the process
of reviewing future agreements of this
style. The Commission has reviewed the
Governor’s decision supporting the
request provided as required by rule
3020.31(b), and has determined that
most of the document does not pose a
risk of competitive harm if disclosed. In
fact, the Postal Service disclosed similar
information associated with Docket Nos.
CP2008–8, CP2008–9, and CP2008–10.
The Postal Service is directed to file a
redacted version of the Governor’s
decision provided under seal in Docket
No. CP2008–6.11
It is Ordered:
1. The China Post Group agreement is
added as a product not of general
applicability to the competitive product
list under Inbound International
Expedited Services as Inbound
International Expedited Services 1
(CP2008–7).
2. The Postal Service shall provide the
Commission with suggestions regarding
the development of a consistent
approach to organizing competitive
product negotiated agreements within
the Mail Classification Schedule by July
23, 2008.
3. The Postal Service shall file with
the Commission a list of all ongoing
Inbound International Expedited
Services agreements and expiration
dates separated by product, along with
a copy of each agreement, by July 23,
2008.
4. The Postal Service shall file with
the Commission a redacted version of
the Governors’ decision provided under
seal in Docket No. CP2008–6 by July 23,
2008.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for
publication of this order in the Federal
Register.
By the Commission.
Issued: June 27, 2008.
Steven W. Williams,
Secretary.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3020
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Administrative practice and
procedure; Postal Service.
I For the reasons stated in the preamble,
under the authority at 39 U.S.C. 503, the
Postal Regulatory Commission amends
39 CFR part 3020 as follows:
11 The redacted version should be filed under
Docket No. MC2008–7. The Commission anticipates
the redacted version will be similar in nature to
what the Postal Service provided associated with
Docket Nos. CP2008–8, CP2008–9, and CP2008–10
on June 16, 2008.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Jul 17, 2008
Jkt 214001
1. The authority citation for part 3020
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 503; 3622; 3631; 3642;
3682.
2. In Appendix A to Subpart A of Part
3020 revise sections 1000 and 2000 to
read as follows:
I
Appendix A to Subpart A of Part
3020—Mail Classification Schedule
Part A—Market Dominant Products
1000 Market Dominant Product List
First-Class Mail
Single-piece Letters/Postcards
Bulk Letters/Postcards
Flats
Parcels
Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail
International
Inbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail
International
Standard Mail (Regular and Nonprofit)
High Density and Saturation Letters
High Density and Saturation Flats/Parcels
Carrier Route
Letters
Flats
Not Flat-Machinables (NFMs)/Parcels
Periodicals
Within County Periodicals
Outside County Periodicals
Package Services
Single-Piece Parcel Post
Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at UPU rates)
Bound Printed Matter Flats
Bound Printed Matter Parcels
Media Mail/Library Mail
Special Services
Ancillary Services
International Ancillary Services
Address List Services
Caller Service
Change-of-Address Credit Card
Authentication
Confirm
International Reply Coupon Service
International Business Reply Mail Service
Money Orders
Post Office Box Service
Premium Forwarding Service (Experiment)
Negotiated Service Agreements
Discover Financial Services Negotiated
Service Agreement
Bank One Negotiated Service Agreement
HSBC North America Holdings Inc.
Negotiated Service Agreement
Bookspan Negotiated Service Agreement
1001 Market Dominant Product
Descriptions
*
*
*
*
*
Part B—Competitive Products
2000 Competitive Product List
Express Mail
Express Mail
Outbound International Expedited Services
Inbound International Expedited Services
Inbound International Expedited Services 1
(CP2008–7)
Priority Mail
Priority Mail
Outbound Priority Mail International
Inbound Air Parcel Post
Parcel Select
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Parcel Return Service
International
International Priority Airlift (IPA)
International Surface Airlift (ISAL)
International Direct Sacks—M-Bags
Global Customized Shipping Services
Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at non-UPU
rates)
International Money Transfer Service
International Ancillary Services
Negotiated Service Agreements
Domestic
Outbound International
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E8–16031 Filed 7–17–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2007–1120; FRL–8693–5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Reasonably Available
Control Technology Requirements for
Marine Vessel and Barge Loading
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Maryland.
This revision establishes and requires
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for the control of volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions
from marine vessel and barge loading.
EPA is approving this SIP revision in
accordance with the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective on August 18, 2008.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2007–1120. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the https://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.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://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
E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM
18JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 139 / Friday, July 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
19103. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Maryland Department of
the Environment, 1800 Washington
Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore,
Maryland, 21230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gobeail McKinley, (215) 814–2033, or
by e-mail at mckinley.gobeail@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 15, 2008 (73 FR 20234), EPA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of
Maryland. The NPR proposed approval
of the control of VOC emissions from
marine vessel and barge loading by
establishing RACT requirements. The
formal SIP revision was submitted by
the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) on October 24,
2007.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
II. Summary of SIP Revision
The Maryland Department of the
Environment submitted this revision to
the SIP to establish reasonably available
control technology requirements for
marine vessel and barging loading. The
SIP revision includes amendments to
Regulation .01 and adoption of new
Regulation .08 under COMAR 26.11.13
Control of Gasoline and Volatile Organic
Compound Storage and Handling. The
amendment to COMAR 26.11.13.01
consists of a new definition that defines
a marine vessel as any tank ship or
barge that transports VOCs in bulk as
cargo. The new regulation COMAR
26.11.13.08 requires owners or operators
of barge loading facilities in Baltimore
City, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert,
Carroll, Cecil, Charles, Frederick,
Harford, Howard, Montgomery, and
Prince George’s Counties to reduce
capture of VOC vapors by 90 percent if
emissions from the barge loading equal
or exceed 25 tons per year (TPY). In the
rest of the state (Allegheny, Caroline,
Dorchester, Garrett, Kent, Queen
Anne’s, St. Mary’s, Somerset, Talbot,
Washington, Wicomico, and Worchester
Counties), controls are required if
emissions are equal to or exceed 50
TPY.
The rationale for EPA’s proposed
action are explained in the NPR and
will not be restated here. On April 15,
2008, EPA received a comment on the
April 15, 2008 NPR. A summary of the
comment submitted and EPA’s response
is provided in section III of this
document.
III. Summary of Public Comments and
EPA Response
Comment: A single commenter
questions why the state is establishing
a RACT standard for marine vessel and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Jul 17, 2008
Jkt 214001
barge loading instead of a Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) or
Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standard. The
commenter also claims that established
BACT and MACT standards would
achieve greater control than the
proposed RACT standard, though at cost
ranging from somewhat less than
estimated by the state.
Response: These amendments,
submitted by the State of Maryland
establishing RACT requirements for
VOC emissions from marine vessel and
barge loading, are being approved by
EPA because EPA has determined that
they properly represent RACT for this
source category. Since the 1970’s, EPA
has consistently interpreted RACT to
mean the lowest emission limit that a
particular source is capable of meeting
by the application of the control
technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic
feasibility. See, e.g., 72 FR 20586 at
20610 (April 25, 2007). Maryland
submitted this SIP revision request
pursuant to the RACT requirements of
sections 182 and 184 of the CAA. Other
provisions of the CAA may require
BACT or MACT level controls for
sources. However, these are generally
considered to be more stringent than
RACT, and thus, the controls necessary
to meet BACT or MACT requirements
may not be the same as controls that
would meet the RACT requirement.
Maryland is located in the Ozone
Transport Region (OTR) that was
created by section 184 of the CAA.
Section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires
that Maryland implement RACT
regulations on all VOC sources that have
the potential to emit 50 TPY or more. In
addition, section 182(b)(2) requires that
Maryland implement RACT regulations
on all major sources of VOC in moderate
or above ozone nonattainment areas
within the State. Major VOC sources are
those with the potential to emit at least
100 TPY in moderate areas, 50 TPY in
serious areas, and 25 TPY in severe
areas.
BACT, on the other hand, is a caseby-case emissions limitation based on
the maximum degree of reduction of a
regulated pollutant emitted from a major
new source or a major modification of
an existing source, as determined by
application of EPA’s Prevention of
Significant Deterioration regulations, 40
CFR 52.21, which are authorized by
sections 160–169 of the CAA. BACT,
therefore, is determined by a different
standard than RACT and does not apply
to unmodified existing sources that
would be covered by the RACT rule.
Similarly, MACT is also a distinct
legal requirement and is determined
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41269
through a different standard than RACT.
MACT standards are designed to reduce
hazardous air pollutants emissions to a
maximum achievable degree, taking into
account factors such as cost and energy
requirements, as set forth at 40 CFR
63.41, and as authorized by section 112
of the CAA. Although EPA has
promulgated a standard for barge
loading (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart Y), as
with BACT, not every source required to
be covered by the Maryland RACT rule
would be required to have a MACT
limit, and the definition of MACT takes
into account factors that are not
required for RACT.
In sum, RACT, MACT, and BACT are
potentially overlapping emissions
limitation requirements, authorized by
different provisions of the CAA,
directed to remedy distinct problems
(RACT, in this case, to help attain the
federal ozone standard by controlling
emissions of VOC, an ozone precursor;
BACT to prevent significant
deterioration in areas attaining a federal
standard through permitting of new and
modified sources; and MACT to control
emissions of listed hazardous air
pollutants), covering different (but
potentially overlapping) subsets of
sources, and based on different control
standards.
The commenter’s failure to document
and support either cost data provided in
the comment, or the methodology the
commenter used to determine BACT/
MACT, prevents EPA from ascertaining
whether or not the commenter has
properly determined BACT/MACT for
these operations, the relative costs
compared to the RACT adopted by the
State, where the cost data supplied in
the comment comes from, or if it is
valid. Mere assertions, without analysis,
that EPA’s proposal is wrong are an
insufficient basis for EPA to disapprove
this SIP. See International Fabricare
Inst. v. EPA, 972 F.2d 384 (D.C.Cir.
1992).
EPA has evaluated Maryland’s SIP
submittal and determined that the
Maryland regulation meets the
requirements for RACT. Because this
SIP revision meets the criteria for RACT,
as well as the other approvability
criteria, EPA must approve this SIP
revision. See section 110(k)(3) of the
CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3); see also,
Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246,
265, 96 S.Ct. 2518, 49 L.Ed.2d 474
(1976).
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the control of
volatile organic compound emissions by
establishing reasonably available control
technology requirements for marine
vessel and barge loading as a revision to
E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM
18JYR1
41270
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 139 / Friday, July 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
the Maryland SIP which was submitted
on October 24, 2007. This regulation
will result in the reduction of VOC
emissions from the affected sources.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. General Requirements
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Jul 17, 2008
Jkt 214001
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
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. EPA will submit a
report containing this action 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. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by September 16,
2008. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this action 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 pertaining to
Maryland’s amendments to the control
of volatile organic compound emissions
by establishing RACT requirements for
marine vessel and barge loading 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, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: July 2, 2008.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
I
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart V—Maryland
2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph
(c) is amended by revising the entry for
COMAR 26.11.13.01 and adding the
entry for COMAR 26.11.13.08 to read as
follows:
I
§ 52.1070
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c)* * *
E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM
18JYR1
*
*
41271
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 139 / Friday, July 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE MARYLAND SIP
Code of Maryland administrative
regulations (COMAR) citation
*
State effective
date
*
*
COMAR 26.11.13
*
*
Definitions ....................................
26.11.13.08 ..................................
Control of VOC Emissions from
Marine Vessel Loading.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E8–16272 Filed 7–17–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0188; FRL–8692–9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002
Base-Year Inventory for the Snyder
County Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) submitted a SIP revision
consisting of a maintenance plan that
provides for continued attainment of the
8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) for at least 10
years after the April 30, 2004
designations, as well as a 2002 base-year
inventory for the Snyder County Area.
EPA is approving the maintenance plan
and the 2002 base-year inventory for the
Snyder County Area as revisions to the
Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with
the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is
effective on August 18, 2008.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0188. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Jul 17, 2008
Jkt 214001
Additional explanation/citation at 40 CFR 52.1100
*
*
Control of Gasoline and Volatile Organic Compound Storage and Handling
*
*
26.11.13.01 ..................................
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
EPA approval date
*
Title/subject
*
10/8/07
10/8/07
*
*
07/18/08 [Insert page
number where the document begins].
07/18/08 [Insert page
number where the document begins].
*
*
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 Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality
Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melissa Linden, (215) 814–2096, or by email at linden.melissa@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On May 27, 2008 (73 FR 30347), EPA
published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The
NPR proposed approval of
Pennsylvania’s SIP revision that
establishes a maintenance plan for the
Snyder County Area that provides for
continued attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after
designation, and a 2002 base-year
emissions inventory. The formal SIP
revisions were submitted by PADEP on
December 17, 2007. Other specific
requirements of Pennsylvania’s SIP
revision and the rationales for EPA’s
proposed actions are explained in the
NPR and will not be restated here. No
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
New regulation
*
public comments were received on the
NPR.
II. Final Action
EPA is approving the maintenance
plan and the 2002 base-year inventory
for the Snyder County Area, submitted
on December 17, 2007, as revisions to
the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is approving
the maintenance plan and 2002 baseyear inventory for the Snyder County
Area because it meets the requirements
of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM
18JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 139 (Friday, July 18, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41268-41271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-16272]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1120; FRL-8693-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Reasonably Available Control Technology Requirements for
Marine Vessel and Barge Loading
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision establishes and
requires reasonably available control technology (RACT) for the control
of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from marine vessel and
barge loading. EPA is approving this SIP revision in accordance with
the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on August 18, 2008.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1120. All documents in the docket are listed in
the https://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. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through https://
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
[[Page 41269]]
19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Maryland
Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705,
Baltimore, Maryland, 21230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gobeail McKinley, (215) 814-2033, or
by e-mail at mckinley.gobeail@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 15, 2008 (73 FR 20234), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. The NPR proposed approval
of the control of VOC emissions from marine vessel and barge loading by
establishing RACT requirements. The formal SIP revision was submitted
by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) on October 24,
2007.
II. Summary of SIP Revision
The Maryland Department of the Environment submitted this revision
to the SIP to establish reasonably available control technology
requirements for marine vessel and barging loading. The SIP revision
includes amendments to Regulation .01 and adoption of new Regulation
.08 under COMAR 26.11.13 Control of Gasoline and Volatile Organic
Compound Storage and Handling. The amendment to COMAR 26.11.13.01
consists of a new definition that defines a marine vessel as any tank
ship or barge that transports VOCs in bulk as cargo. The new regulation
COMAR 26.11.13.08 requires owners or operators of barge loading
facilities in Baltimore City, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert,
Carroll, Cecil, Charles, Frederick, Harford, Howard, Montgomery, and
Prince George's Counties to reduce capture of VOC vapors by 90 percent
if emissions from the barge loading equal or exceed 25 tons per year
(TPY). In the rest of the state (Allegheny, Caroline, Dorchester,
Garrett, Kent, Queen Anne's, St. Mary's, Somerset, Talbot, Washington,
Wicomico, and Worchester Counties), controls are required if emissions
are equal to or exceed 50 TPY.
The rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR
and will not be restated here. On April 15, 2008, EPA received a
comment on the April 15, 2008 NPR. A summary of the comment submitted
and EPA's response is provided in section III of this document.
III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Response
Comment: A single commenter questions why the state is establishing
a RACT standard for marine vessel and barge loading instead of a Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) or Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standard. The commenter also claims that established
BACT and MACT standards would achieve greater control than the proposed
RACT standard, though at cost ranging from somewhat less than estimated
by the state.
Response: These amendments, submitted by the State of Maryland
establishing RACT requirements for VOC emissions from marine vessel and
barge loading, are being approved by EPA because EPA has determined
that they properly represent RACT for this source category. Since the
1970's, EPA has consistently interpreted RACT to mean the lowest
emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by the
application of the control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility. See, e.g., 72 FR
20586 at 20610 (April 25, 2007). Maryland submitted this SIP revision
request pursuant to the RACT requirements of sections 182 and 184 of
the CAA. Other provisions of the CAA may require BACT or MACT level
controls for sources. However, these are generally considered to be
more stringent than RACT, and thus, the controls necessary to meet BACT
or MACT requirements may not be the same as controls that would meet
the RACT requirement.
Maryland is located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) that was
created by section 184 of the CAA. Section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA
requires that Maryland implement RACT regulations on all VOC sources
that have the potential to emit 50 TPY or more. In addition, section
182(b)(2) requires that Maryland implement RACT regulations on all
major sources of VOC in moderate or above ozone nonattainment areas
within the State. Major VOC sources are those with the potential to
emit at least 100 TPY in moderate areas, 50 TPY in serious areas, and
25 TPY in severe areas.
BACT, on the other hand, is a case-by-case emissions limitation
based on the maximum degree of reduction of a regulated pollutant
emitted from a major new source or a major modification of an existing
source, as determined by application of EPA's Prevention of Significant
Deterioration regulations, 40 CFR 52.21, which are authorized by
sections 160-169 of the CAA. BACT, therefore, is determined by a
different standard than RACT and does not apply to unmodified existing
sources that would be covered by the RACT rule.
Similarly, MACT is also a distinct legal requirement and is
determined through a different standard than RACT. MACT standards are
designed to reduce hazardous air pollutants emissions to a maximum
achievable degree, taking into account factors such as cost and energy
requirements, as set forth at 40 CFR 63.41, and as authorized by
section 112 of the CAA. Although EPA has promulgated a standard for
barge loading (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart Y), as with BACT, not every
source required to be covered by the Maryland RACT rule would be
required to have a MACT limit, and the definition of MACT takes into
account factors that are not required for RACT.
In sum, RACT, MACT, and BACT are potentially overlapping emissions
limitation requirements, authorized by different provisions of the CAA,
directed to remedy distinct problems (RACT, in this case, to help
attain the federal ozone standard by controlling emissions of VOC, an
ozone precursor; BACT to prevent significant deterioration in areas
attaining a federal standard through permitting of new and modified
sources; and MACT to control emissions of listed hazardous air
pollutants), covering different (but potentially overlapping) subsets
of sources, and based on different control standards.
The commenter's failure to document and support either cost data
provided in the comment, or the methodology the commenter used to
determine BACT/MACT, prevents EPA from ascertaining whether or not the
commenter has properly determined BACT/MACT for these operations, the
relative costs compared to the RACT adopted by the State, where the
cost data supplied in the comment comes from, or if it is valid. Mere
assertions, without analysis, that EPA's proposal is wrong are an
insufficient basis for EPA to disapprove this SIP. See International
Fabricare Inst. v. EPA, 972 F.2d 384 (D.C.Cir. 1992).
EPA has evaluated Maryland's SIP submittal and determined that the
Maryland regulation meets the requirements for RACT. Because this SIP
revision meets the criteria for RACT, as well as the other
approvability criteria, EPA must approve this SIP revision. See section
110(k)(3) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3); see also, Union Elec. Co.
v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 265, 96 S.Ct. 2518, 49 L.Ed.2d 474 (1976).
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the control of volatile organic compound emissions
by establishing reasonably available control technology requirements
for marine vessel and barge loading as a revision to
[[Page 41270]]
the Maryland SIP which was submitted on October 24, 2007. This
regulation will result in the reduction of VOC emissions from the
affected sources.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
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 September 16, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action 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 pertaining to Maryland's amendments
to the control of volatile organic compound emissions by establishing
RACT requirements for marine vessel and barge loading 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, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: July 2, 2008.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
0
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 (c) is amended by revising
the entry for COMAR 26.11.13.01 and adding the entry for COMAR
26.11.13.08 to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1070 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c)* * *
[[Page 41271]]
EPA-Approved Regulations in the Maryland SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code of Maryland administrative State Additional explanation/citation at 40
regulations (COMAR) citation Title/subject effective date EPA approval date CFR 52.1100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMAR 26.11.13 Control of Gasoline and Volatile Organic Compound Storage and Handling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
26.11.13.01....................... Definitions.......... 10/8/07 07/18/08 [Insert page number where the
document begins].
26.11.13.08....................... Control of VOC 10/8/07 07/18/08 [Insert page number where the New regulation
Emissions from document begins].
Marine Vessel
Loading.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-16272 Filed 7-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
