[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 214 (Thursday, November 5, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59720-59722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29658]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MD060-3032a; FRL-6183-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Approval of Revision to the VOC Rule Governing Automotive and
Light-duty Truck Coating Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Maryland. This action revises the rule
citation for the VOC provisions governing automotive and light-duty
truck coating operations. The intended effect of this action is to
provide consistency between Maryland's current regulatory numbering
format and the Maryland SIP numbering format with regard to this rule.
There are no substantive revisions. This action is being taken in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective without further notice on
January 4, 1999, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by
December 7, 1998. Should EPA receive such comments, it will publish a
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and
inform the public that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to Marcia L. Spink,
Associate Director, Office of Air Programs, Mailcode 3AP20, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 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;
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; and the
Maryland Department of the Environment, 2500 Broening Highway,
Baltimore Maryland 21224.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold A. Frankford, (215) 814-2108,
or by e-mail at frankford.harold@epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On February 6, 1998, the State of Maryland submitted a formal
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision,
Number 98-01, consists of revised citation for the Federally-
enforceable rules governing automotive and light-duty truck coating.
The new SIP citation--COMAR 26.11.19.03-- replaces the current SIP
citation, which is COMAR 10.18.21.03. There are no revisions to the
substantive provisions of this rule.
Except for the COMAR citation and associated administrative
revisions, the provisions of COMAR 26.11.19.03 are identical to that
which became State-enforceable at COMAR 10.18.21.03 effective July 18,
1983. Maryland had submitted the 1983 light-duty truck coating rule to
EPA on August 22, 1983. EPA approved COMAR 10.18.21.03 in its entirely
on September 10, 1984 (49 FR 35500), and incorporated by reference this
rule into the Maryland SIP at 40 CFR 52.1070(c)(72).
Although Maryland had revised the State-enforceable rule effective
August 10, 1987 and August 1, 1988, EPA had never revised the 1983
Maryland SIP rule. On August 18, 1997, Maryland repealed the 1987
revision (as amended in 1988), and adopted the version of COMAR
26.11.19.03 being approved by EPA in today's action.
EPA is approving this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective January 4, 1999
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
December 7, 1998.
If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of direct the final rule informing the public that the rule
will not take effect. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Parties
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments
are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on
January 4, 1999 and no further action will be taken on the proposed
rule.
II. Final Action
EPA is approving the revision to COMAR 26.11.19.03 as a revision to
the Maryland SIP, and incorporating this provision by reference at 40
CFR section 52.1070(c)(140).
[[Page 59721]]
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Orders 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from review under E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 12875
Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not
create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The rule does
not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), applies to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is
``economically significant,'' as defined under Executive Order 12866,
and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule
has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This final
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and it does not address an environmental health or safety
risk that would have a disproportionate effect on children.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments. This action does not involve or impose any requirements
that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section
3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create
any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
Clean Air Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. EPA has determined that
the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that
may result in estimated annual costs of $100 million or more to either
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private
sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under
State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action.
G. 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 rule 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. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
H. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the
[[Page 59722]]
appropriate circuit by January 4, 1999. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule revising the
SIP citation for Maryland's VOC provisions governing automotive and
light-duty truck coating operations does not affect the finality of
this rule 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 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, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 27, 1998.
Thomas Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart V--Maryland
2. Section 52.1070 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(140) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1070 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(140) Revisions to the Maryland State Implementation Plan submitted
on February 6, 1998 by the Maryland department of the Environment:
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter of February 6, 1998 from the Maryland Department of the
Environment transmitting revisions to COMAR 26.11.19, pertaining to the
control of VOC emissions from automotive and light-duty truck coating
operations.
(B) Revised COMAR 26.11.19.03, effective September 22, 1997.
(ii) Additional Material--Remainder of the February 6, 1998 State
submittal [Revision No. 98-01].
[FR Doc. 98-29658 Filed 11-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
