Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Approval of Revision to the VOC Rule Governing Automotive and Light-duty Truck Coating Operations

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