[Federal Register: May 25, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 101)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29674-29675]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25my04-15]
[[Page 29674]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MD166-3111; FRL-7666-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Control of VOC Emissions From AIM Coatings
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 control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 24, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by MD166-3111 by one of the
following methods:
A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
B. E-mail: morris.makeba@epa.gov.
C. Mail: Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality Planning 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. MD166-3111.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, 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 regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov Web site 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
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 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.
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; and Maryland Department of
the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore,
Maryland 21230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto, (215) 814-2182, or by e-
mail at quinto.rose@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 19, 2004, the Maryland Department
of the Environment (MDE) submitted a revision to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of COMAR 26.11.33
Architectural Coatings which pertains to the control of VOC emissions
from AIM coatings (the AIM Rule).
I. Background
In December 1999, EPA identified emission reduction shortfalls in
several one-hour ozone nonattainment areas in the Ozone Transport
Region (OTR) and required those areas to address the shortfalls. The
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) developed model rules of control
measures for a number of source categories. The OTC AIM coatings model
rule was based on the existing rules developed by the California Air
Resources Board, which were analyzed and modified by the OTC workgroup
to address VOC reduction needs in the OTR. The standards and
requirements contained in Maryland's AIM coatings rule are consistent
with the OTC model rule.
II. Summary of SIP Revision
The Maryland AIM Rule applies to any person who supplies, sells,
offers for sale, or manufactures any AIM coating for the use in
Maryland; as well as a person who applies or solicits the application
of any AIM coating within Maryland. The rule does not apply to the
following: (1) Any AIM coating that is sold or manufactured for use
outside of Maryland, or for shipment to other manufacturers for
reformulation or repackaging; (2) any aerosol coating product; or (3)
any architectural coating that is sold in a container with a volume of
one liter (1.057 quarts) or less. The rule sets specific VOC content
limits, in grams per liter, for AIM coating categories with a
compliance date of January 1, 2005. Manufacturers would ensure
compliance with the limits by reformulating coatings and substituting
coatings with compliant coatings that are already in the market. The
rule contains VOC content requirements for a wide variety of field-
applied coatings, including graphic art coatings, lacquers, primers and
stains. The rule also contains administrative requirements for labeling
and reporting. There are a number of test methods that would be used to
demonstrate compliance with this rule. Some of these test methods
include those promulgated by EPA and South Coast Air Quality Management
District of California. The test methods used to test coatings must be
the most current approved method at the time testing is performed. In
addition, the rule includes good faith efforts to be used by a retailer
in safeguarding against the sale of a non-compliant product, in the
course of business, ensure that the products meet the applicable State
requirements.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve COMAR 26.11.33 for the control of VOC
emission from AIM Coatings submitted on March 19, 2004. 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, or Use'' (66 FR 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
[[Page 29675]]
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 (Pub. L. 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 standard, 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 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 pertaining to Maryland's AIM 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.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 18, 2004.
Richard J. Kampf,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 04-11773 Filed 5-24-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P