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, 28773-28775 [2013-11789]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules
is actively considering the possibility of
including in the Office’s updated regulations
provisions that would enhance or expand
upon the details required for including all
steps in rate calculation. See Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, Mechanical and
Digital Phonorecord Delivery Compulsory
License 77 FR 44179 (July 27, 2012).
B. Whether the ‘‘confidentiality
requirement’’ proposed for 37 CFR 385.12(f)
and 385.22(e) encroach upon the exclusive
statutory domain of the Register under § 115
of the Act.
As the Settling Participants accurately set
forth, the ‘‘confidentiality requirement’’ does
not address the form, content, and manner of
certification of statements of account. As
such, the proposed ‘‘confidentiality
requirement’’ does not encroach upon the
Register’s authority with respect to
statements of account as provided in 17
U.S.C. 115(c)(5). Furthermore, the Register is
not aware that the ‘‘confidentiality
requirement’’ conflicts with any other
authority reserved for the Register. However,
the Register also notes that it is unclear
whether the CRJs have any independent
authority to issue regulations such as the
proposed ‘‘confidentiality requirement’’
which would impose obligations on a
copyright owner with regard to what he or
she is able to do with a statement of account
received by a licensee. The Register, suggests
that the question of whether the CRJs have
authority to issue regulations imposing
requirements on what a copyright owner (as
opposed to a licensee) may do (or not do)
with information in a statement of account
after that statement has been prepared and
served in accordance with the Office’s
regulations, represents a novel question of
law that may be separately referred to the
Register. If such a novel question is referred
to the Register, the Register submits that the
participants should be afforded an
opportunity to brief that specific issue, which
was not adequately addressed in the
participants’ brief on the instant referral. If
such a novel question is referred, the Register
encourages the participants to cite specific
sources supporting the view that the CRJs
enjoy such authority.
May 1, 2013.
lllllllllllllllllllll
Maria A. Pallante,
Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 2013–11560 Filed 5–15–13; 8:45 am]
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
BILLING CODE 1410–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 May 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0066; FRL– 9814–8]
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the Maryland State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) on January 10,
2013. The SIP revision consists of a new
regulation pertaining to control of
volatile organic compound emissions
from pleasure craft coating operations.
This action is being taken under the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before June 17, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2013–0066 by one of the
following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0066,
Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director,
Office of Air Program Planning,
Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted 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–2013–
0066. 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 email. The www.regulations.gov Web
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28773
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 email
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your
email 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.
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:
Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by
email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. EPA Action
II. Background
III. SIP Revision Submitted by the State of
Maryland
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Review
I. EPA Action
EPA is proposing to approve revisions
to Maryland’s SIP which were
submitted by MDE on January 10, 2013.
The SIP revision submittal adopts 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.
E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM
16MYP1
28774
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Specifically, MDE has added Regulation
.27–1 under COMAR 26.11.19 to reduce
further volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions from pleasure craft
coating operations. This revision reflects
technology developments and expands
VOC emission controls, as well as
reflects the recommended reasonably
available control technology (RACT)
requirements in EPA’s CTG for MMPPC.
II. Background
Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides
that SIPs for nonattainment areas must
include reasonably available control
measures (RACM), including RACT, for
sources of emissions. Section
182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain
nonattainment areas, states must revise
their SIP to include RACT for sources of
VOC emissions covered by a CTG
document issued after November 15,
1990 and prior to the area’s date of
attainment. EPA defines RACT as ‘‘the
lowest emission limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting
by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility.’’
(44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979).
CTGs are documents issued by EPA
intended to provide state and local air
pollution control authorities
information that should assist them in
determining RACT for VOC from
various sources. Section 183(e)(3)(c)
provides that EPA may issue a CTG in
lieu of a national regulation as RACT for
a product category where EPA
determines that the CTG will be
substantially as effective as regulations
in reducing emissions of VOC in ozone
nonattainment areas. The
recommendations in the CTG are based
upon available data and information
and may not apply to a particular
situation based upon the circumstances.
States can follow the CTG and adopt
state regulations to implement the
recommendations contained therein, or
they can adopt alternative approaches.
In either case, states must submit their
RACT rules to EPA for review and
approval as part of the SIP process.
EPA developed the CTG for MMPPC
in September 2008. The miscellaneous
metal product and plastic parts surface
coatings categories under section 183(e)
of the CAA include the coatings that are
applied to the surfaces of a varied range
of metal and plastic parts and products.
Such parts or products are constructed
either entirely or partially from metal or
plastic. These miscellaneous metal
products and plastic parts include, but
are not limited to, metal and plastic
components of the following types of
products as well as the products
themselves: Fabricated metal products,
molded plastic parts, small and large
farm machinery, commercial and
industrial machinery and equipment,
automotive or transportation equipment,
interior or exterior automotive parts,
construction equipment, motor vehicle
accessories, bicycles and sporting goods,
toys, recreational vehicles, pleasure
craft (recreational boats), extruded
aluminum structural components,
railroad cars, heavier vehicles, lawn and
garden equipment, business machines,
laboratory and medical equipment,
electronic equipment, steel drums,
metal pipes, and numerous other
industrial and household products.
The pleasure craft coating category
does not include coatings that are a part
of other product categories listed under
Section 183(e) of the CAA for which
CTGs have been published or included
in other CTGs. As a result, members of
the pleasure craft coatings industry
contacted EPA requesting
reconsideration of the pleasure craft
VOC limits contained in EPA’s 2008
MMPPC CTG. In response, EPA issued
a memorandum on June 1, 2010, titled
‘‘Control Technique Guidelines for
Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part
Coatings—Industry Request for
Reconsideration,’’ recommending that
the pleasure craft industry work with
state agencies during their RACT rule
development process to assess what is
reasonable for the specific sources
regulated. EPA has stated that states can
use the recommendations from the
MMPPC CTG to form their own
determinations as to what constitutes
RACT for pleasure craft coating
operations in their particular ozone
nonattainment area. CTGs impose no
legally binding requirements on any
entity, including pleasure craft coating
facilities. As stated in the memorandum,
EPA will evaluate state-developed
RACT rules and determine whether the
submitted rules meet the RACT
requirements of the CAA.
III. SIP Revision Submitted by the State
of Maryland
On January 10, 2013, MDE submitted
a SIP revision adopting the
recommendations contained in both
EPA’s MMPPC CTG and in comments
from trade associations representing the
pleasure craft industry for the control of
VOC as RACT. 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 at
facilities with actual VOC emissions of
15 pounds or more per day (15 lb/day)
from coating operations as determined
on a monthly average on or after January
1, 2013; (2) establish exemptions for
certain types of coatings; (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 in
Table 1 below.
TABLE 1—PLEASURE CRAFT COATING STANDARDS
[Expressed in terms of mass of VOC per volume of coating excluding water and exempt compounds, as applied]
Pounds (lbs)
VOC/gallon
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Coating types
Extreme high gloss topcoat .....................................................................................................................
High gloss topcoat ...................................................................................................................................
Pretreatment wash primers .....................................................................................................................
Finish primer/surface:
Applicable through March 31, 2014 .................................................................................................
Applicable through March 31, 2014 .................................................................................................
High build primer/surface .........................................................................................................................
Aluminum substrate antifoulant coating ..................................................................................................
Antifouling sealer/tiecoat ..........................................................................................................................
Other substrate antifoulant coating .........................................................................................................
All other pleasure craft surface coatings .................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 May 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM
Kilograms (kg)
VOC/liter
5.0
3.5
6.5
5.0
3.5
2.8
4.7
3.5
3.3
3.5
16MYP1
0.60
0.42
0.78
0.60
0.42
0.34
0.56
0.42
0.40
0.42
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules
More detailed information on these
provisions can be found in the technical
support document located in the docket
prepared for this rulemaking action.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the State
of Maryland SIP revision submitted on
January 10, 2013, adopting the
requirements as recommended by the
MMPPC CTG and adopting the pleasure
craft industry recommendations for the
following four coating categories: Finish
Primer/Surfacer; Antifouling Sealer/
Tiecoat; Other Substrate Antifoulant;
and Extreme High Gloss. For these four
categories, Maryland reviewed industry
data and determined that for the
purpose of functionality, cost, and VOC
emissions, the alternative limits adopted
for these four coating categories
constitute RACT. EPA believes that
Maryland’s approach is consistent with
the guidance memorandum entitled,
‘‘Control Technique Guidelines for
Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part
Coatings—Industry Request for
Reconsideration,’’ and therefore,
believes that these regulations reflect
RACT. EPA concurs with MDE’s
analysis in the SIP submittal that this
regulation reflects RACT. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered
before taking final action.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
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 proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:45 May 15, 2013
Jkt 229001
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 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).
In addition, this proposed rule,
pertaining to the State of Maryland’s
amendments to regulations for the
control of VOCs for MMPPC, 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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 2, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2013–11789 Filed 5–15–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2007–0602; FRL–9813–4]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; North Carolina;
State Implementation Plan
Miscellaneous Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28775
EPA is proposing to approve
a portion of a revision to the North
Carolina State Implementation Plan
submitted on February 3, 2010, through
the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources.
This revision updates the North
Carolina SIP to reflect EPA’s current
national ambient air quality standards
for ozone, lead and particulate matter
found in the Code of Federal
Regulations. In the Final Rules Section
of this Federal Register, EPA is
approving the State’s implementation
plan revision as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA
receives adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will
not institute a second comment period
on this document. Any parties
interested in commenting on this
document should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 17, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2007–0602 by one of the following
methods:
(a) www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
(b) Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.
(c) Fax: (404) 562–9019.
(d) Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2007–0602,
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
(e) Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae
Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal
holidays.
Please see the direct final rule which
is located in the Rules section of this
Federal Register for detailed
instructions on how to submit
comments.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16MYP1.SGM
16MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 95 (Thursday, May 16, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28773-28775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11789]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0066; FRL- 9814-8]
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: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Maryland State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) on January 10, 2013. The SIP revision consists of a
new regulation pertaining to control of volatile organic compound
emissions from pleasure craft coating operations. This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 17, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2013-0066 by one of the following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0066, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, 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-
2013-0066. 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 email. The
www.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 email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
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.
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: Gregory Becoat, (215) 814-2036, or by
email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. EPA Action
II. Background
III. SIP Revision Submitted by the State of Maryland
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Review
I. EPA Action
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Maryland's SIP which were
submitted by MDE on January 10, 2013. The SIP revision submittal adopts
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.
[[Page 28774]]
Specifically, MDE has added Regulation .27-1 under COMAR 26.11.19 to
reduce further volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from pleasure
craft coating operations. This revision reflects technology
developments and expands VOC emission controls, as well as reflects the
recommended reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements
in EPA's CTG for MMPPC.
II. Background
Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment
areas must include reasonably available control measures (RACM),
including RACT, for sources of emissions. Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides
that for certain nonattainment areas, states must revise their SIP to
include RACT for sources of VOC emissions covered by a CTG document
issued after November 15, 1990 and prior to the area's date of
attainment. EPA defines RACT as ``the lowest emission limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and
economic feasibility.'' (44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979).
CTGs are documents issued by EPA intended to provide state and
local air pollution control authorities information that should assist
them in determining RACT for VOC from various sources. Section
183(e)(3)(c) provides that EPA may issue a CTG in lieu of a national
regulation as RACT for a product category where EPA determines that the
CTG will be substantially as effective as regulations in reducing
emissions of VOC in ozone nonattainment areas. The recommendations in
the CTG are based upon available data and information and may not apply
to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. States can
follow the CTG and adopt state regulations to implement the
recommendations contained therein, or they can adopt alternative
approaches. In either case, states must submit their RACT rules to EPA
for review and approval as part of the SIP process.
EPA developed the CTG for MMPPC in September 2008. The
miscellaneous metal product and plastic parts surface coatings
categories under section 183(e) of the CAA include the coatings that
are applied to the surfaces of a varied range of metal and plastic
parts and products. Such parts or products are constructed either
entirely or partially from metal or plastic. These miscellaneous metal
products and plastic parts include, but are not limited to, metal and
plastic components of the following types of products as well as the
products themselves: Fabricated metal products, molded plastic parts,
small and large farm machinery, commercial and industrial machinery and
equipment, automotive or transportation equipment, interior or exterior
automotive parts, construction equipment, motor vehicle accessories,
bicycles and sporting goods, toys, recreational vehicles, pleasure
craft (recreational boats), extruded aluminum structural components,
railroad cars, heavier vehicles, lawn and garden equipment, business
machines, laboratory and medical equipment, electronic equipment, steel
drums, metal pipes, and numerous other industrial and household
products.
The pleasure craft coating category does not include coatings that
are a part of other product categories listed under Section 183(e) of
the CAA for which CTGs have been published or included in other CTGs.
As a result, members of the pleasure craft coatings industry contacted
EPA requesting reconsideration of the pleasure craft VOC limits
contained in EPA's 2008 MMPPC CTG. In response, EPA issued a memorandum
on June 1, 2010, titled ``Control Technique Guidelines for
Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings--Industry Request for
Reconsideration,'' recommending that the pleasure craft industry work
with state agencies during their RACT rule development process to
assess what is reasonable for the specific sources regulated. EPA has
stated that states can use the recommendations from the MMPPC CTG to
form their own determinations as to what constitutes RACT for pleasure
craft coating operations in their particular ozone nonattainment area.
CTGs impose no legally binding requirements on any entity, including
pleasure craft coating facilities. As stated in the memorandum, EPA
will evaluate state-developed RACT rules and determine whether the
submitted rules meet the RACT requirements of the CAA.
III. SIP Revision Submitted by the State of Maryland
On January 10, 2013, MDE submitted a SIP revision adopting the
recommendations contained in both EPA's MMPPC CTG and in comments from
trade associations representing the pleasure craft industry for the
control of VOC as RACT. 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 at facilities with actual
VOC emissions of 15 pounds or more per day (15 lb/day) from coating
operations as determined on a monthly average on or after January 1,
2013; (2) establish exemptions for certain types of coatings; (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 in Table 1 below.
Table 1--Pleasure Craft Coating Standards
[Expressed in terms of mass of VOC per volume of coating excluding water
and exempt compounds, as applied]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pounds (lbs) VOC/ Kilograms (kg) VOC/
Coating types gallon liter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extreme high gloss topcoat...... 5.0 0.60
High gloss topcoat.............. 3.5 0.42
Pretreatment wash primers....... 6.5 0.78
Finish primer/surface:
Applicable through March 31, 5.0 0.60
2014.......................
Applicable through March 31, 3.5 0.42
2014.......................
High build primer/surface....... 2.8 0.34
Aluminum substrate antifoulant 4.7 0.56
coating........................
Antifouling sealer/tiecoat...... 3.5 0.42
Other substrate antifoulant 3.3 0.40
coating........................
All other pleasure craft surface 3.5 0.42
coatings.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28775]]
More detailed information on these provisions can be found in the
technical support document located in the docket prepared for this
rulemaking action.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the State of Maryland SIP revision
submitted on January 10, 2013, adopting the requirements as recommended
by the MMPPC CTG and adopting the pleasure craft industry
recommendations for the following four coating categories: Finish
Primer/Surfacer; Antifouling Sealer/Tiecoat; Other Substrate
Antifoulant; and Extreme High Gloss. For these four categories,
Maryland reviewed industry data and determined that for the purpose of
functionality, cost, and VOC emissions, the alternative limits adopted
for these four coating categories constitute RACT. EPA believes that
Maryland's approach is consistent with the guidance memorandum
entitled, ``Control Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and
Plastic Part Coatings--Industry Request for Reconsideration,'' and
therefore, believes that these regulations reflect RACT. EPA concurs
with MDE's analysis in the SIP submittal that this regulation reflects
RACT. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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 proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed 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 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).
In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to the State of
Maryland's amendments to regulations for the control of VOCs for MMPPC,
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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 2, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2013-11789 Filed 5-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
