[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 15, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1972-1974]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-729]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD137-3090a; FRL-7420-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maryland; Revision to the Control of Volatile Organic Compound 
Emissions From Screen Printing and Digital Imaging

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the 
Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision consists of the 
establishment of reasonable available control technology (RACT) to 
limit volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from an overprint 
varnish that is used in the cosmetic industry. The revision also adds 
new definitions and amends certain existing definitions for terms used 
in the regulation. EPA is approving this revision to the State of 
Maryland SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on March 17, 2003, without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by February 14, 
2003. If EPA receives 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 addressed to Walter Wilkie, 
Acting Branch Chief, Air Quality Planning and Information Services 
Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, 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, 1301 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Washington, DC 20460, and the 
Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, 
Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Wentworth, (215) 814-2034, or by 
e-mail at [email protected]. Please note that while questions may 
be posed via telephone and e-mail, formal comments must be submitted in 
writing, as indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On February 12, 1999, the Maryland Department of the Environment 
(MDE) submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revising the Code of Maryland Administrative Regulation (COMAR) 
26.11.19.18, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Screen 
Printing. This revision amended the previous

[[Page 1973]]

regulation .18 by adding RACT standards for VOC emissions from digital 
imaging operations throughout the state. The same limits for screen 
printing from the previous screen printing regulation were retained (62 
FR 53544, October 15, 1997). The February 12, 1999, submittal also 
revised Maryland's screen printing regulations to eliminate expired 
interim dates and limits, and repealed the existing sections B-I, and 
added new sections B-G. A definition for the term ``digital imaging'' 
was also added to the rule. This regulation was adopted by MDE on 
August 4, 1998, and became effective on August 24, 1998. EPA approved 
MDE's revision to its screen printing and digital imaging regulation on 
June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32415).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On June 21, 2002, MDE submitted a formal revision to its SIP 
revising COMAR 26.11.19.18, Control of Volatile Organic Compound 
Emissions from Screen Printing and Digital Imaging, section C, General 
Requirements for Screen Printing. This revision establishes a VOC limit 
for overprint varnish. Overprint varnish is a FDA-regulated coating 
that is used by the cosmetic industry to prevent lipstick from adhering 
to the plastic film on sample cards sold to retail stores. 
Specifically, this SIP revision establishes a maximum VOC content, as 
applied, for overprint varnish on any substrate, of 6.03 pounds of VOC 
per gallon. All of the previous limits in Maryland's existing screen 
printing regulation have been retained. As a result, COMAR 
26.11.19.18C(1)(a)-(c) has been renumbered as COMAR 26.11.19.18C(1)(b)-
(d) to reflect the addition of the new requirement. This SIP revision 
also amends the definitions section of this rule, COMAR 26.11.19.18A, 
by adding a definition for the term ``Overprint varnish'' at COMAR 
26.11.19.18A(10-1), and revising the current definition of ``Clear 
coating'' at COMAR 26.11.19.18A(4)(a) and (b) for clarification 
purposes.
    The CAA requires each revision to a state implementation plan to be 
reviewed to make sure that the revision does not interfere with any 
applicable requirements concerning reasonable further progress (ROP) 
and attainment. Currently, there is one source, the Color Prelude 
Company, located in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, that will be 
affected by this revision. Growth projections for emissions from this 
category have been accounted for in the Maryland ROP and attainment 
demonstration. EPA has concluded that this regulation will not 
negatively impact any ROP or attainment demonstration of the ozone 
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) previously submitted by 
the State of Maryland, and is therefore approvable as a revision to the 
Maryland SIP.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving a revision to the State of Maryland SIP which was 
submitted on June 21, 2002, by the Maryland Department of the 
Environment (MDE) establishing a state-wide VOC limit to control 
emissions from an overprint varnish that is used in the cosmetic 
industry, and adds and revises definitions for terms used in the 
regulation. All previously approved screen printing and digital imaging 
requirements have been retained.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's 
Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve 
as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are 
filed. This rule will be effective on March 17, 2003, without further 
notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by February 14, 2003. If EPA 
receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take 
effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule 
based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment 
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so 
at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an 
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may 
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those 
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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 approves 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 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not 
have tribal implications because it will 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). 
This action also does not have federalism implications because it does 
not 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). 
This action merely approves 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 rule 
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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. This 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.).

[[Page 1974]]

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 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).

C. 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 appropriate circuit by March 17, 2003. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
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, establishing a VOC limit for an overprint 
varnish that is used in screen printing by the cosmetic industry in 
Maryland, 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: December 4, 2002.
Thomas C. Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

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 paragraph (c)(177) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (177) Revisions to the Code of Maryland Administrative Regulation 
(COMAR) 26.11.19.18 pertaining to the establishment of a VOC limit for 
overprint varnish used in the cosmetic industry, submitted on June 21, 
2002, by the Maryland Department of the Environment:
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letter of June 21, 2002, from the Maryland Department of the 
Environment transmitting amendments to Regulation .18, Control of 
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Screen Printing and Digital 
Imaging, under COMAR 26.11.19, Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific 
Processes.
    (B) Additions and Revisions to COMAR 26.11.19.18, Control of 
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Screen Printing and Digital 
Imaging under COMAR 26.11.19, Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific 
Processes, effective June 10, 2002:
    (1) Revised COMAR 26.11.19.18A(4)(a) and added COMAR 
26.11.19.18A(4)(b), revising the definition of the term ``Clear 
coating.''
    (2) Added COMAR 26.11.19.18A (10-1), adding a definition for the 
term ``Overprint varnish.''
    (3) Added COMAR 26.11.19.18C(1)(a) (General Requirements for Screen 
Printing). Former COMAR 26.11.19.18C(1)(a) through (c) is renumbered as 
26.11.19.18C(1)(b) through (d).
    (ii) Additional Material.--Remainder of the State submittal 
pertaining to the revisions listed in paragraph (c)(177)(i) of this 
section.

[FR Doc. 03-729 Filed 1-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U