[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 [email protected].

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