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:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
EPA
is
proposing
to
approve
a
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
revision
submitted
by
the
State
of
Maryland.
This
revision
pertains
to
the
removal
of
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).

DATES:
Written
comments
must
be
received
on
or
before
[
insert
date
30
days
from
date
of
publication].
2
ADDRESSES:
Submit
your
comments,
identified
by
Docket
ID
Number
EPA­
R03­
OAR­

2006­
0607
by
one
of
the
following
methods:

A.
www.
regulations.
gov.
Follow
the
on­
line
instructions
for
submitting
comments.

B.
E­
mail:
morris.
makeba@
epa.
gov
C.
Mail:
EPA­
R03­
OAR­
2006­
0607,
Makeba
Morris,
Chief,
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Analysis
Branch,
Mailcode
3AP21,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
III,
1650
Arch
Street,
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
19103.

D.
Hand
Delivery:
At
the
previously­
listed
EPA
Region
III
address.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket
=

s
normal
hours
of
operation,
and
special
arrangements
should
be
made
for
deliveries
of
boxed
information.

Instructions:
Direct
your
comments
to
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
R03­
OAR­
2006­
0607.
EPA's
policy
is
that
all
comments
received
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
without
change,
and
may
be
made
available
online
at
www.
regulations.
gov,
including
any
personal
information
provided,
unless
the
comment
includes
information
claimed
to
be
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
or
otherwise
protected
through
www.
regulations.
gov
or
e­
mail.
The
www.
regulations.
gov
website
is
an
"
anonymous
access"
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity
or
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
EPA
without
going
through
www.
regulations.
gov,
your
e­
mail
address
will
be
automatically
captured
and
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
public
docket
and
made
available
on
the
Internet.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name
and
other
3
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment
and
with
any
disk
or
CD­
ROM
you
submit.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.
Electronic
files
should
avoid
the
use
of
special
characters,
any
form
of
encryption,
and
be
free
of
any
defects
or
viruses.

Docket:
All
documents
in
the
electronic
docket
are
listed
in
the
www.
regulations.
gov
index.

Although
listed
in
the
index,
some
information
is
not
publicly
available,
i.
e.,
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
in
www.
regulations.
gov
or
in
hard
copy
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
21230.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
On
May
17,
2006,
the
Maryland
Department
of
the
Environment
submitted
a
revision
to
its
SIP
entitled
"
Removal
of
the
1984
American
Cyanamid
Company
Secretarial
Order
from
Maryland's
State
Implementation
Plan."
The
request
was
for
the
removal
of
a
Secretarial
Order
(
by
Consent)
currently
incorporated
into
the
Maryland
SIP.
4
EPA
is
proposing
to
approve
Maryland's
requested
SIP
revision
removing
the
Order
from
the
SIP.

I.
Background
EPA
published
a
final
rule
on
May
16,
1990
(
55
FR
20269),
approving
the
Order
issued
to
the
Company's
adhesive
manufacturing
facility
in
Havre
de
Grace,
Maryland
(
the
Facility),
as
a
revision
to
the
Maryland
SIP.
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.

Since
EPA's
May
16,
1990
approval
of
the
Order
as
a
SIP
revision
the
Facility
has
been
acquired
by
Cytec
Engineered
Materials,
Inc.
(
Cytec).

II.
Summary
of
SIP
Revision
EPA
is
proposing
to
approve
this
SIP
revision
submitted
by
the
State
of
Maryland.
The
revision
will
remove
the
Order
from
the
Maryland
SIP.
Removal
of
the
Order
from
the
SIP
will
subject
the
VOC
emissions
sources
at
the
Facility
that
formerly
subject
to
the
"
bubbling"
provisions
of
the
Order
to
the
Maryland
VOC
regulations
and
limits
codified
at
Code
of
Maryland
Regulations
5
(
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
proposed
SIP
revision
will
remove
the
current
ability
for
Cytec
to
comply
with
VOC
emissions
limits
for
the
sources
subject
to
the
Order
through
averaging
or
"
bubbling"
of
VOC
emissions.
The
SIPapproved
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.

III.
Proposed
Action
EPA
is
proposing
to
approve
Maryland's
SIP
revision
submitted
May
27,
2006
to
remove
the
August
2,
1984
Secretarial
Order
issued
to
American
Cyanamid
Company
from
the
SIP.
EPA
is
soliciting
public
comments
on
the
issues
discussed
in
this
document.
These
comments
will
be
considered
before
taking
final
action.

IV.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
this
proposed
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,
6
or
Use"
(
66
Fed.
Reg.
28355
(
May
22,
2001)).
This
action
merely
proposes
to
approve
state
law
as
meeting
Federal
requirements
and
imposes
no
additional
requirements
beyond
those
imposed
by
state
law.
Accordingly,
the
Administrator
certifies
that
this
proposed
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
proposes
to
approve
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
proposed
rule
also
does
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),
nor
will
it
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),
because
it
merely
proposes
to
approve
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
proposed
rule
also
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
(
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
7
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.

As
required
by
section
3
of
Executive
Order
12988
(
61
FR
4729,
February
7,
1996),
in
issuing
this
proposed
rule,
EPA
has
taken
the
necessary
steps
to
eliminate
drafting
errors
and
ambiguity,

minimize
potential
litigation,
and
provide
a
clear
legal
standard
for
affected
conduct.
EPA
has
complied
with
Executive
Order
12630
(
53
FR
8859,
March
15,
1988)
by
examining
the
takings
implications
of
the
rule
in
accordance
with
the
"
Attorney
General's
Supplemental
Guidelines
for
the
Evaluation
of
Risk
and
Avoidance
of
Unanticipated
Takings"
issued
under
the
executive
order.
This
proposed
rule
to
remove
the
Secretarial
Order
for
American
Cyanamid
from
the
Maryland
SIP
does
not
impose
an
information
collection
burden
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995
(
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.).

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
52
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,
Ozone,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Volatile
organic
compounds
Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7401
et
seq.
/
s/

___________________________
____________________________
Dated:
August
16,
2006
Donald
S.
Welsh,
Regional
Administrator,
Region
III.
