
[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


