Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Action: Proposed rule
Citation: FR Doc. 05-16111 · R03-OAR-2005-MD-0011; FRL-7952-5 · 40 CFR 52

Summary

EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision pertains to the amendments of controlling volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings in Maryland. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

Dates

Written comments must be received on or before September 14, 2005.

Supplementary Information

On March 15, 2005, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) submitted a revision to its SIP. The SIP revision consists of amendments to Regulations .06, .10, and .12; repeal of existing Regulation .13; and adoption of new Regulation .13 under COMAR 26.11.33 Architectural Coatings. I. Background On March 19, 2004, MDE submitted a regulation establishing standards to reduce VOC emissions from AIM coatings in Maryland. These standards were based on a regional model rule developed by an Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) workgroup consisting of several states, including Maryland. EPA published a proposed rulemaking of the Maryland AIM coatings rule on May 25, 2004 (69 FR 29674), and the final rulemaking on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 24979) with an effective date of June 13, 2005. II. Summary of SIP Revision To provide consistency with similar regulations adopted by the other states in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), MDE submitted amendments to COMAR 26.11.33 Architectural Coatings. The amendments are: 1. Addition of four industrial coatings to the list of specific coatings that are excluded from applying the most restrictive VOC limit in Regulation .06B: calcimine recoaters, impacted immersion coatings, nuclear coatings, and thermoplastic rubber coating and mastic. Regulation .06A requires the application of the most restrictive VOC limit to a coating that satisfies the definition for more than one coating or for different applications. 2. Remove the requirement to include on the label that conversion varnishes are to be used only by professionals. Conversion varnish is a specially formulated coating made available to professionals that are involved with the coating or recoating of hardwood floors. 3. The requirement for coating manufacturers to submit annual reports on the volume of coating sold in Maryland has been changed to require the information to be maintained for five years and made available to MDE upon request. III. Proposed Action EPA's review of this material indicates that the MDE amendments to its AIM coatings rule are administrative changes that will not affect VOC reductions achieved though compliance with the coating standards. EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Maryland SIP for the amendments of COMAR 26.11.33 submitted on March 15, 2005. 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 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 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 the amendments to the Maryland's AIM coatings 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, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: August 5, 2005. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. 05-16111 Filed 8-12-05; 8:45 am]