78 FR 187 pgs. 59240-59242 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Which Includes Pleasure Craft Coating Operations
Type: RULEVolume: 78Number: 187Pages: 59240 - 59242
Pages: 59240, 59241, 59242Docket number: [EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0066; FRL-9901-20-Region3]
FR document: [FR Doc. 2013-23100 Filed 9-25-13; 8:45 am]
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency
Official PDF Version: PDF Version
[top]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0066; FRL-9901-20-Region3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Adoption of Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Which Includes Pleasure Craft Coating Operations
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 revision consists of a new regulation pertaining to control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from pleasure craft coating operations. EPA is approving the revision to reduce further VOC emissions from pleasure craft coating operations in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES:
This final rule is effective on October 28, 2013.
ADDRESSES:
[top] EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0066. All documents in the docket are listed in the 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
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gregory Becoat, (215) 814-2036, or by email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On May 16, 2013 (78 FR 28773), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. The NPR proposed approval of Maryland's Regulation .27-1 under COMAR 26.11.19-Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes. On January 10, 2013, Maryland submitted the formal SIP revision (#12-08) adopting the requirements as recommended by EPA's control technique guidelines (CTG) for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Plastic Coating (MMPPC) operations and as recommended by trade associations representing the pleasure craft industry.
II. Summary of SIP Revision
The SIP revision adds Regulation .27-1 under COMAR 26.11.19 in order to: (1) Establish applicability for pleasure craft and fiberglass boat coating operations; (2) establish exemptions; (3) add definitions and terms to reflect pleasure craft coating operations; (4) incorporate by reference the standard test method for Specular Gloss; (5) establish that the least stringent emission limitation is applicable if more than one emission limitation applies to a specific coating; (6) establish application methods; and (7) specify VOC limit requirements for pleasure craft coating operations. EPA received no adverse comments on the NPR to approve Maryland's SIP revision. A more complete explanation of the amendments and the rationale for EPA's proposed action is explained in the technical support document and the NPR in support of this final rulemaking and will not be restated here.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving Maryland's SIP revision adopting a new regulation to control VOC emissions from pleasure craft coating operations.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. 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);
• 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. );
• 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. );
• 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 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);
• 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 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 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 CAA; 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).
• 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 25, 2013. 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 approving Maryland's amendments to regulations for the control of VOCs for MMPPC 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: August 29, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52-APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority:
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
[top]
Subpart V-Maryland
2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding an entry for COMAR 26.11.19.27-1, after the existing entry for COMAR 26.11.19.27. The added text reads as follows:
§ 52.1070 Identification of plan.
(c) * * *
| Code of Maryland Administrative Regulations (COMAR) citation | Title/subject | State effective date | EPA-Approval date | Additional explanation/ citation at 40 CFR 52.1100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ******* | ||||
| 26.11.19Volatile Organic Compounds From Specific Processes | ||||
| ******* | ||||
| 26.11.19.27-1 | Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Pleasure Craft Coating Operations | 10/12/12 | 9/26/13 [Insert page number where the document begins ] | Regulation Added. |
| ******* | ||||
[FR Doc. 2013-23100 Filed 9-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P