[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 91 (Thursday, May 12, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24979-24987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-9314]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MD166-3112; FRL-7910-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From AIM
Coatings
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision pertains to the
control of volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from
architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings. EPA is
approving this SIP revision in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act).
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on June 13, 2005.
ADDRESSES: 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, and the Maryland
Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705,
Baltimore, Maryland 21230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto, (215) 814-2182, or by e-
mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On May 25, 2004 (69 FR 29674), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. The NPR proposed approval
of a Maryland regulation pertaining to the control of VOC from AIM
coatings. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE) on March 19, 2004. Other specific
requirements of Maryland's SIP revision for AIM coatings and the
rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will
not be restated here. On June 24, 2004, EPA received adverse comments
on its May 25, 2004 proposed rulemaking. A summary of the comments
submitted and EPA's responses are provided in Section II of this
document.
EPA is aware that concerns have been raised about the achievability
of VOC content limits of some of the product categories under the
Maryland AIM coatings rule. Although we are approving this rule today,
the Agency is concerned that if the rule's limits make it impossible
for manufacturers to produce coatings that are desirable to consumers,
there is a possibility that users may misuse the products by adding
additional solvent, thereby circumventing the rule's intended VOC
emission reductions. We intend to work with Maryland and manufacturers
to explore ways to ensure that the rule achieves the intended VOC
emission reductions, and we intend to address this issue in evaluating
the amount of VOC emission reduction credit attributable to the rule.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
A. The National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA) is one of
commenters on EPA's May 25, 2004 NPR proposing approval of Maryland's
AIM coatings rule. The NPCA has submitted to EPA, by reference, the
same comments it previously submitted to MDE on Maryland's proposed
version of its AIM coatings rule during the State's adoption process.
The NPCA also commented that it endorses and incorporates by reference
the comments submitted by the Sherwin Williams Company (SWC) to EPA on
the May 25, 2004 NPR proposing approval of Maryland's AIM coatings
rule. The following summarizes the comments presented to Maryland by
the NPCA during the State's adoption of its AIM rule and EPA's response
to those comments as they pertain to its May 25, 2004 NPR proposing
approval of Maryland's AIM coatings rule:
1. Comment: The NPCA has developed an alternative proposal to the
Maryland AIM coatings rule (Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) model
rule). The NPCA believes that its proposal should be considered by MDE
as a viable alternative to the OTC model rule.
2. Comment: The NPCA suggests revising the Maryland AIM coatings
rule to include an averaging program, modeled after the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) program, and administered on a regional basis.
3. Comment: The NPCA suggests revising the Maryland AIM coatings
rule
[[Page 24980]]
to include a coating-specific variance provision.
4. Comment: The NPCA suggests revising the Maryland AIM coatings
rule to include a scheduled technology assessment by MDE and/or OTC AIM
workgroup on the appropriateness of implementing all of the future VOC
limits.
5. Comment: The NPCA suggests revising the Maryland AIM coatings
rule to make the reporting requirements consistent with other OTC
states' AIM coating rules by amending section 13. Reporting
Requirements, to eliminate the annual reports for clear brushing
lacquers, rust preventive coatings, and specialty primers, sealers and
undercoaters. The NPCA recommends MDE replace this requirement with one
that only requires the manufacturers to maintain records of the sales
of these AIM products and report these sales only when requested by
MDE.
6. Comment: NPCA suggests revising the Maryland AIM coatings rule
to make section 06. Most Restrictive VOC limit, consistent with other
OTC states' rules by adding the following four additional categories to
the list: Calcimine recoaters, impacted immersion coatings, nuclear
coatings, and thermoplastic rubber coating and mastic.
7. Comment: The NPCA suggests revising the Maryland AIM coatings
rule to eliminate the special labeling requirement for conversion
varnishes which requires manufacturers to prominently display the words
``For Professional Use Only'' on each can of conversion varnish to make
the labeling requirements of the Maryland AIM coatings rule consistent
with other OTC states' AIM rules.
Response: With regard to the comments submitted by the NPCA to
Maryland on its proposed AIM coatings rule and subsequently, by
reference, to EPA on its May 25, 2004 proposed approval of Maryland's
March 19, 2004 SIP revision request, it is important to understand
EPA's role with regard to review and approval or disapproval of rules
submitted by states as SIP revisions. EPA can only take action upon the
final adopted version of a state's regulation as submitted by that
state in its SIP revision request. It is not within EPA's authority, by
its rulemaking on the SIP revision or otherwise, to change or modify
the text or requirements of a state regulation. Therefore, EPA cannot
modify Maryland's AIM regulation as suggested in the comments submitted
by the NPCA. Prior to approving a SIP revision request submitted by a
state, EPA reviews the submission to ensure that the state provided the
opportunity for comment and held a hearing(s) on the proposed state
regulation that is at issue in the SIP revision pursuant to section
110(a) of the Act. In this case, Maryland's March 19, 2004 submission
of its AIM coatings rule to EPA includes the necessary documentation to
demonstrate that it met these requirements. Maryland's March 19, 2004
SIP revision submission is included in the docket of this rulemaking. A
complete SIP revision submission from a state includes copies of timely
comments properly submitted to the state on the proposed SIP revision
and the state's responses to those comments. Maryland's March 19, 2004
submission of its AIM coatings rule as a SIP revision to EPA properly
includes both the comments submitted on its proposed AIM coatings rule
and Maryland's responses to those comments.
B. As noted previously, SWC is the other commenter on EPA's May 25,
2004 NPR proposing approval of Maryland's AIM coatings rule. As stated
previously, the comments from NPCA incorporate by reference and endorse
these comments submitted by SWC. The following summarizes the comments
submitted by SWC and the NPCA (by reference) and EPA's responses:
1. Comment: Using Flawed Data Violates the Data Quality Objectives
Act and Administrative Procedures Act--The commenters assert that the
Maryland AIM coatings rule is based on flawed data and that the use of
this data violates the Data Quality Objectives Act (``DQOA'') (Section
515(a) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)). The data at issue is
contained in what the commenters characterize as a ``study prepared by
E.H. Pechan & Associates'' (Pechan Study) in 2001. The alleged flaws
relate to projected emissions reductions calculated in the Pechan
Study. The commenters assert that certain of the underlying data and
data analyses are allegedly ``unreproduceable.'' Further, the
commenters assert that if better data were used, the OTC model AIM
coatings rule would achieve greater VOC emissions reductions, relative
to the Federal AIM coatings rule, than was calculated in the Pechan
Study (54 percent reduction versus 31 percent reduction), even if
certain source categories were omitted from regulation under the OTC
rule. For these reasons, the commenters state that EPA must not approve
the proposed Maryland AIM coatings rule as a SIP revision.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One of the commenters has submitted a ``Request for
Correction of Information'' (RFC) dated June 2, 2004, to EPA's
Information Quality Guidelines Office in Washington, DC which raises
substantively similar issues to those raised by this comment. By
letter dated February 25, 2005 from Robert Brenner, Principal Deputy
Assistant Administrator to the Counsel for Sherwin Williams Company,
EPA responded separately to the RFC. A copy of that letter is
included in the administrative record for this final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. What the commenters
characterize as the Pechan Study is not at issue in this rulemaking.
The Pechan Study was not submitted to EPA by Maryland in its request
that EPA approve its AIM coatings rule.\2\ The validity of the Pechan
Study data is not at issue because Maryland did not request approval of
a quantified ount of VOC emission reduction from the enactment of its
regulation.\3\ Rather, this AIM coatings regulation has been submitted
by Maryland, and is being considered by EPA, on the basis that it
strengthens the existing Maryland SIP. The commenters do not dispute
that the Maryland AIM coatings rule will, in fact, reduce VOC
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The commenters concede that the Pechan Study and related
spreadsheet are not part of the record submitted to EPA by Maryland.
They assert, however, that there are references to the Pechan Study
in other materials submitted by Maryland. The commenters also assert
that one of them submitted a copy of the Pechan Study as an exhibit
to its comments; however, EPA's review of the commenter's submission
indicates that the Pechan Study was not submitted to EPA. Whether or
not the Pechan Study, or data from that study, was submitted to EPA
does not alter our analyses or conclusion, described herein, that
the Pechan Study is not relevant in this rulemaking.
\3\ The commenters assert that there is a ``discrepancy as to
whether Maryland has requested credits or intends to do so in the
near future.'' EPA is not aware of any discrepancy. Maryland did not
request any amount of VOC reduction credits in the SIP revision that
is the subject of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110 of the Act provides the statutory framework for
approval/disapproval of SIP revisions. Under the Act, EPA establishes
NAAQS for certain pollutants. The Act establishes a joint Federal and
state program to control air pollution and to protect public health.
States are required to prepare SIPs for each designated ``air quality
control region'' within their borders. The SIP must specify emission
limitations and other measures necessary for that area to meet and
maintain the required NAAQS. Each SIP must be submitted to EPA for its
review and approval. EPA will review and must approve the SIP revision
if it is found to meet the minimum requirements of the Act. See section
110(k)(3) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3); see also, Union Elec. Co.
v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 265, 96 S.Ct. 2518, 49 L.Ed.2d 474 (1976). The
Act
[[Page 24981]]
expressly provides that the states may adopt more stringent air
pollution control measures than the Act requires with or without EPA
approval. See section 116 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7416. EPA must
disapprove state plans, and revisions thereto, that are less stringent
than a standard or limitation provided by Federal law. See section
110(k) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); see also Duquesne Light v. EPA,
166 F.3d 609 (3d Cir. 1999).
The Pechan Study is not part of Maryland's submission in support of
its AIM coatings rule. Because Maryland's March 19, 2004 submission
does not seek approval of a specific amount of emissions reductions,
the level of emissions reductions that might be calculable using data
contained in the Pechan Study is irrelevant to whether EPA should
approve this SIP revision.\4\ The only relevant inquiry at this time is
whether this SIP revision meets the minimum criteria for approval under
the Act, including the requirement that Maryland's AIM coatings rule be
at least as stringent as the otherwise applicable Federal AIM coatings
rule set forth at 40 CFR 59.400, subpart D.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ After submission of a request for approval of a quantified
amount of emissions reductions credit due to the AIM coatings rule
by the State, EPA will evaluate the credit attributable to the rule.
Whatever methodology and data the State uses in such a request will
become ripe for public comment.
\5\ The commenters assert that ``it makes no difference whether
Maryland is asking for credits at this time for there to be a Data
Quality Act challenge,'' apparently because the fact that material
from the Pechan Study appears in the rulemaking docket for this
action, there is ``dissemination of flawed data.'' This ignores that
fact that EPA is taking no stance on the Pechan Study and its
underlying data. That study is irrelevant to our analysis as to
whether the Maryland AIM rule is approvable as a measure meeting the
requirements of section 110 of the Act that strengthens the Maryland
SIP. EPA is not required to address irrelevant material merely
because it is in the rulemaking docket. Section 307(d)(6)(B) of the
CAA (which aplies to, among other things, SIP revisions, see 42
U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(B)), requires EPA to respond to ``each of the
significant comments, criticisms, and new data submitted * * *
during the public comment period.'' 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(6)(B). The
United States Supreme Court has held that ``irrelevant'' matter in
the docket is not ``significant'' as that term is used in the CAA,
and EPA has no duty to respond to them. See Whitman v. Amer.
Trucking Ass'ns., Inc., 531 U.S. 457, n. 2 at 470 (2001). With
respect to the Pechan data, we are not disseminating it, but we
rather are fulfilling our statutory role as custodian of a docket
containing irrelevant material submitted by third parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has concluded that the Maryland AIM coatings rule meets the
criteria for approvability. It is worth noting that EPA agrees with the
commenters' conclusion that the Maryland AIM coatings rule is more
stringent than the Federal AIM coatings rule, though not for the
reasons given by the commenters, i.e., that the commenters' ``better''
data demonstrates that OTC Model AIM coatings rule achieves a 54
percent, as opposed to the Pechan Study's 31 percent reduction in VOC
emissions beyond that required by the Federal AIM coatings rule.
Rather, EPA has determined that the Maryland AIM coatings rule is, on
its face, more stringent than the Federal AIM coatings rule. As stated
on page 1945, under ``Comparison to Federal Standards'' in the Maryland
Bulletin, Volume 30, Issue 26 (December 26, 2003): ``[T]his proposed
action is more restrictive or stringent than the corresponding Federal
standards * * *.'' Examples of categories for which Maryland's AIM
coatings rule is facially more stringent than the Federal AIM coatings
rule include, but are not limited to, the VOC content limit for non-
flat high gloss coatings and antifouling coatings. The Federal AIM
coatings rule's VOC content limit for non-flat high gloss coatings is
380 grams/liter while the Maryland AIM coatings rule's limit is 250
grams/liter, and the Federal AIM coatings rule's VOC content limit for
anti-fouling coatings is 450 grams/liter while the Maryland AIM
coatings rule's is 400 grams/liter. Examples of categories for which
the Maryland AIM coatings rule is as stringent, but not more stringent,
than the Federal AIM coatings rule include, but are not limited to, the
VOC content limit for antenna coatings and low-solids coatings. In both
rules the VOC content limits for these categories are 530 grams/liter
and 120 grams/liter, respectively. Thus, on a category by category
basis, EPA believes that Maryland's AIM coatings rule is as stringent
or more stringent than the Federal AIM coatings rule. Further, EPA has
received no comments that the Maryland AIM coatings rule is less
stringent than the Federal AIM coatings rule.
2. Comment: The MD AIM Coatings Rule Was Adopted in Violation of
Clean Air Act Section 183(e)(9)--The commenters state that in 1998,
after a seven-year rule development process, EPA promulgated its
nationwide emission limitation for AIM coatings pursuant to Clean Air
Act section 183(e). The commenters note that Maryland's AIM coatings
rule seeks to impose numerous VOC emission limits that will be more
stringent than the corresponding limits in EPA's regulation. The
commenters assert that section 183(e)(9) requires that any state which
proposes regulations to establish emission standards other than the
Federal standards for products regulated under Federal rules shall
first consult with the EPA Administrator. The commenters believe that
Maryland failed to engage in that required consultation, and that,
therefore, (1) Maryland violated section 183(e)(9) in its adoption of
the Maryland AIM coatings rule, and (2) approval of the AIM coatings
rule by EPA would violate, and is, therefore, prohibited by sections
110(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(E) of the Act.
Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. Contrary to the
implication of the commenters, section 183(e)(9) does not require
states to seek EPA's permission to regulate consumer products. By its
explicit terms, the statute contemplates consultation with EPA only
with respect to ``whether any other state or local subdivision has
promulgated or is promulgating regulations or any products covered
under [section 183(e)].'' The commenters erroneously construe this as a
requirement for permission rather than informational consultation.
Further, the final Federal AIM coatings regulations at 40 CFR 59.410
explicitly provides that states and their political subdivisions retain
authority to adopt and enforce their own additional regulations
affecting these products. See also 63 FR 48848, 48884 (September 11,
1998). In addition, as stated in the preamble to the final rule for
architectural coatings, Congress did not intend section 183(e) to
preempt any existing or future state rules governing VOC emissions from
consumer and commercial products. See id. at 48857. Accordingly, MDE
retains authority to impose more stringent limits for architectural
coatings as part of its SIP, and its election to do so is not a basis
for EPA to disapprove the submission for inclusion into the SIP. See
Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. at 265-66 (1976). Although national
uniformity in consumer and commercial product regulations may have some
benefit to the regulated community, EPA recognizes that some localities
may need more stringent regulation to combat more serious and more
intransigent ozone nonattainment problems.
Further, there was ample consultation with EPA prior to Maryland's
adoption of its AIM coatings rule. On March 28, 2001 the OTC adopted a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on regional control measures, signed
by all the member states of the OTC, including Maryland, which
officially made available the OTC model rules, including the AIM
coatings model rule. See the discussion of this MOU in the Report of
the Executive Director, OTC, dated July 24, 2001, a copy of which has
[[Page 24982]]
been included in administrative record of this final rulemaking. That
MOU includes the following text, ``WHEREAS after reviewing regulations
already in place in OTC and other States, reviewing technical
information, consulting with other States and Federal agencies,
consulting with stakeholders, and presenting draft model rules in a
special OTC meeting, OTC developed model rules for the following source
categories * * * architectural and industrial maintenance coatings * *
*.'' (a copy of the signed March 28, 2001 MOU has been placed in the
administrative record of this final rulemaking).
Therefore, there is no validity to the commenters' assertion that
Maryland failed to consult with EPA in the adoption of its AIM coatings
rule. EPA was fully cognizant of the requirements of the Maryland AIM
coatings rule before its formal adoption by Maryland.\6\ For all these
reasons, EPA disagrees that Maryland violated section 183(e)(9) in its
adoption of the its AIM coatings rule, and disagrees that approval of
the Maryland AIM coatings rule by EPA is in violation of or prohibited
by section 110(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(E) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ While EPA reviewed the model AIM coatings rule and the draft
Maryland version of that rule, EPA had no authority under the Clean
Air Act to dictate the exact language or requirements of the rule.
As explained previously, EPA's role is to review a state submission
to ensure it meets the applicable criteria of section 110 generally,
and, in the case of an AIM rule to ensure it is at least as
stringent as the otherwise applicable Federal rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Comment: The MD AIM Coatings Rule Was Adopted in Violation of
Clean Air Act Section 184(c), and Approval of the SIP Revision Would,
Itself, Violate That Section--The commenters believe the OTC violated
Clean Air Act section 184(c)(l) by failing to ``transmit'' its
recommendations to the Administrator, and that the OTC's violation was
compounded by the Administrator's failure to review the Model Rule
through the notice, comment and approval process required by Clean Air
Act section 184(c)(2)-(4). The commenters assert that these purported
violations of the Clean Air Act prevent Maryland from adopting the
Maryland AIM coatings rule, and now prevent EPA from validly approving
them as a revision to the Maryland SIP.
Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. Section 184(c)(1) of the
Act states that ``the [OTC] may, after notice and opportunity for
public comment, develop recommendations for additional control measures
to be applied within all or a part of such transport region if the
commission determines such measures are necessary to bring any area in
such region into attainment by the dates provided by this subpart.'' It
is important to note that the OTC model AIM coatings rule was not
developed pursuant to section 184(c)(1), which provision is only
triggered ``[u]pon petition of any State within a transport region
established for ozone * * *.'' No such petition preceded the
development of the model AIM coatings rule. Nor, for that matter, was
development of a rule upon State petition under section 184(e)(1) meant
to be the exclusive mechanism for development of model rules within the
OTC. Nothing in section 184 prevents the voluntary development of model
rules without the prerequisite of a state petition. Section 184 is a
voluntary process and the OTC may opt for that process or another. This
provision of the Act was not intended to prevent OTC's development of
model rules which states may individually choose to adapt and adopt on
their own, as Maryland did, basing its AIM coatings rule on the model
developed within the context of the OTC. In developing its state rule
from the OTC model, Maryland was free to adapt that rule as it saw fit
(or to leave the OTC model rule essentially unchanged), so long as its
rule remained at least as stringent as the Federal AIM coatings rule.
As previously stated, on March 28, 2001, the OTC member states
signed a MOU on regional control measures, including the AIM coatings
model rule. The OTC did not develop recommendations to the
Administrator for additional control measures. The MOU stated that
implementing these rules will help attain and maintain the 1-hour
standard for ozone and were therefore made available to the states for
use in developing their own regulations.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The commenters argue that section 184 either does not
require a formal petition to be triggered, or alternatively, that
the MOU between the OTC states qualifies as a ``petition.'' With
respect to their first argument, section 184(c) says that the OTC
``may, after notice and opportunity for public comment, develop
recommendations for additional control measures * * *'' and that the
recommendations shall be presented to the EPA Administrator. This
mechanism is triggered ``upon petition of any State with a transport
region established for ozone, and based on a majority vote of the
Governors on the Commission (or their designees) * * *.'' 42 U.S.C.
7511d(c)(1) (emphasis added). The clear and unambiguous language of
the Act requires a petition and a vote. We reasonably interpret
section 184(c), in light of the obligation to conduct a vote, to
require the petition to be a manifestation of an express intent to
invoke the section 184(c) process. Further, any petition would need
to be sufficient in its clarity to put members on notice of their
obligation to hold a vote and fulfill the other provisions of the
section 184 process. We do not believe that a document which in
hindsight might be construed as an inadvertent opt-in to the
voluntary section 184 process could be the petition affirmatively
intended by the Act.
With respect to the argument that the MOU is in hindsight a
``petition'' triggering the section 184 rule development process,
nothing in the record indicates that the OTC treated this MOU as a
petition to initiate the section 184 process. This is not surprising
because the MOU's plain language recites that the model rules had
already been developed that by the time the MOU was signed
(``WHEREAS * * * OTC developed final model rules for the following
source categories * * *.''). Under section 184(c) the petition
initiates the voluntary section 184 rule development process. 42
U.S.C. 7511d(c)(1). The MOU, however, came near the end of the OTC's
model rule development process. This is a strong indication that the
OTC did not intend the AIM coatings rule, or the other rules recited
in the MOU, to be subject to the section 184 process. By its failure
to express an intention to trigger the section 184 rule development
mechanism, we reject the argument that the MOU constitutes a section
184(c) petition. The MOU neither expressly nor inadvertently opted-
in the OTC states to the section 184 process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though the OTC did not develop the model AIM coatings rule
pursuant to section 184(c)(1) of the Act, nevertheless it provided
ample opportunity for OTC member and stakeholder comment by holding
several public meetings concerning the model rules including the AIM
coatings model rule. The sign-in sheets or agenda for four meetings
held in 2000 and 2001 at which the OTC AIM coatings model was discussed
(some of which reflect the attendance of a representative of the EPA
and/or the commenters), have been placed in the administrative record
for this final rulemaking.
4. Comment: The MD AIM Coatings Rule Violates the Commerce Clause
and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution--The
commenters' title heading of this comment states that the Maryland AIM
coatings rule violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S.
Constitution, but the text that follows that title heading provides no
arguments or assertions to support this claim. In both the title
heading and the text that follows, the commenters claim that the
Maryland AIM coatings rule violates the Commerce Clause of Article I,
section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, because it allegedly imposes an
unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. The commenters assert that
because the Maryland AIM coatings rule contains VOC limits and other
provisions that differ from the Federal AIM coatings rule in 40 CFR
59.400, the rule imposes unreasonable restrictions and burdens on the
flow of coatings in interstate commerce. The commenters further clarify
that the burdens of the Maryland AIM coatings rule are excessive and
outweigh the benefits of the rule. The commenters argue that EPA should
disapprove the SIP revision on this basis.
[[Page 24983]]
Response: As indicated previously, the commenters provide no
arguments or assertions as to the claim made in the title heading of
this comment that the Maryland AIM coatings rule violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution (see pages 12-13 of the
letter dated June 24, 2005 from SWC to Docket ID No. MD166-3111, EPA
Proposal To Approve SIP Revision Submitted by the State of Maryland
Concerning Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings).
Moreover, the text of the comment following the title heading does not
reference or even make mention of the Equal Protection Clause. Lastly,
in no other comment submitted by SW on EPA's May 25, 2004 proposed
approval of Maryland's AIM coatings rule is there any mention or
reference to the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. EPA
does not believe that any provision of the Maryland AIM coatings rule
violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Regarding the comment that Maryland's AIM coatings rule violates
the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, EPA agrees with this
comment only to the extent that it acknowledges that AIM coatings are
products in interstate commerce and that state regulations on coatings
therefore have the potential to violate the Commerce Clause. EPA
understands the commenters' practical concerns caused by differing
state regulations, but disagrees with the commenters' view that the
Maryland AIM coatings rule impermissibly impinges on interstate
commerce. A state law may violate the Commerce Clause in two ways: (i)
By explicitly discriminating between interstate and intrastate
commerce; or (ii) even in the absence of overt discrimination, by
imposing an incidental burden on interstate commerce that is markedly
greater than that on intrastate commerce. The Maryland AIM coatings
rule does not explicitly discriminate against interstate commerce
because it applies evenhandedly to all coatings manufactured or sold
for use within the state. At most, therefore, the Maryland AIM coatings
rule could have an incidental impact on interstate commerce. In the
case of incidental impacts, the Supreme Court has applied a balancing
test to evaluate the relative impacts of a state law on interstate and
intrastate commerce. See, Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137
(1970). Courts have struck down even nondiscriminatory state statutes
when the burden on interstate commerce is ``clearly excessive in
relation to the putative local benefits.'' Id. at 142.
At the outset, EPA notes that it is unquestionable that Maryland
has a substantial and legitimate interest in obtaining VOC emissions
for the purpose of attaining the ozone NAAQS. The adverse health
consequences of exposure to ozone are well known and well established
and need not be repeated here. See, e.g., National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone: Final Response to Remand, 68 FR 614, 620-25
(January 6, 2003). Thus, the objective of Maryland in adopting the
Maryland AIM coatings rule is to protect the public health of the
citizens of Maryland. The courts have recognized a presumption of
validity where the state statute affects matters of public health and
safety. See, e.g., Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of
Delaware, 450 U.S. 662, 671 (1980). Moreover, even where the state
statute in question is intended to achieve more general environmental
goals, courts have upheld such statutes notwithstanding incidental
impacts on out of state manufacturers of a product. See, e.g, Minnesota
v. Clover Leaf Creamery, et al., 449 U.S. 456 (1981) (upholding state
law that banned sales of milk in plastic containers to conserve energy
and ease solid waste problems).
The commenters assert, without reference to any facts, that the
Maryland AIM coatings rule imposes burdens and has impacts on consumers
that are ``clearly excessive in relation to the purported benefits * *
*.'' By contrast, EPA believes that any burdens and impacts occasioned
by the Maryland AIM coatings rule are not so overwhelming as to trump
the state's interest in the protection of public health. First, the
Maryland AIM coatings rule does not restrict the transportation of
coatings in commerce itself, only the sale of nonconforming coatings
within the state's own boundaries. The state's rule excludes coatings
sold or manufactured for use outside the state or for shipment to
others. COMAR 26.11.33.01(B)(1)(a) and (b). The Maryland AIM coatings
rule cannot be construed to interfere with the transportation of
coatings through the state en route to other states. As such, EPA
believes that the cases concerning impacts on the interstate modes of
transportation themselves are inapposite. See, e.g., Bibb v. Navajo
Freight Lines, 359 U.S. 520 (1938).
Second, the Maryland AIM coatings rule is not constructed in such a
way that it has the practical effect of requiring extraterritorial
compliance with the state's VOC limits. The Maryland AIM coatings rule
only governs coatings manufactured or sold for use within the state's
boundaries. The manufacturers of coatings in interstate commerce are
not compelled to take any particular action, and they retain a range of
options to comply with the rule, including, but not limited to: (1)
Ceasing sales of nonconforming products in Maryland; (2) reformulating
nonconforming products for sale in Maryland and passing the extra costs
on to consumers in that state; (3) reformulating nonconforming products
for sale more broadly; (4) developing new lines of conforming products;
or (5) entering into production, sales or marketing agreements with
companies that do manufacture conforming products. Because
manufacturers or sellers of coatings in other states are not forced to
meet Maryland's regulatory requirements elsewhere, the rule does not
impose the type of obligatory extraterritorial compliance that the
courts have considered unreasonable. See, e.g., NEMA v. Sorrell, 272
F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2000) (state label requirement for light bulbs
containing mercury sold in that state not an impermissible
restriction). It may be that the Maryland AIM coatings rule will have
the effect of reducing the availability of coatings or increasing the
cost of coatings within the state, but courts typically view it as the
prerogative of the state to make regulatory decisions with such impacts
upon its own citizens. NPCA v. City of Chicago, 45 F.3d 1124 (7th Cir.
1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1143 (1995) (local restriction on sales
of paints used by graffiti artists may not be the most effective means
to meet objective, but that is up to the local government to decide).
Third, the burdens of the Maryland AIM coatings rule typically do
not appear to fall more heavily on interstate commerce than upon
intrastate commerce. The effect on manufacturers and retailers will
fall on all manufacturers and retailers regardless of location if they
intend their products for sale within Maryland, and does not appear to
have the effect of unfairly benefitting in-state manufacturers and
retailers. The mere fact that there is a burden on some companies in
other states does not alone establish impermissible interference with
interstate commerce. See, Exxon Corp. v. Maryland, 437 U.S. 117, 126
(1978).
In addition, EPA notes that courts do not typically find violations
of the Commerce Clause in situations where states have enacted state
laws with the authorization of Congress. See, e.g., Oxygenated Fuels
Assoc., Inc. v. Davis, 63 F. Supp. 1182 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (state ban on
MTBE authorized by Congress);
[[Page 24984]]
NEMA v. Sorell, 272 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2000) (RCRA's authorization of
more stringent state regulations confers a ``sturdy buffer'' against
Commerce Clause challenges). Section 183(e) of the Act governs the
Federal regulation of VOCs from consumer and commercial products, such
as coatings covered by the Maryland AIM coatings rule. EPA has issued a
Federal regulation that provides national standards, including VOC
content limits, for such coatings. See 40 CFR 59.400 et seq. Congress
did not, however, intend section 183(e) to pre-empt additional state
regulation of coatings, as is evident in section183(e)(9) which
indicates explicitly that states may regulate such products. EPA's
regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act recognized that states
might issue their own regulations, so long as they meet or exceed the
requirements of the Federal regulations. See, e.g., the National
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural
Coatings, 40 CFR 59.410, and the Federal Register which published the
standards, 63 FR 48848, 48857 (September 11, 1998). Thus, EPA believes
that Congress has clearly provided that a state may regulate coatings
more stringently than other states.
In section 116 of the Act, Congress has also explicitly reserved to
states and their political subdivisions the right to adopt local rules
and regulations to impose emissions limits or otherwise abate air
pollution, unless there is a specific Federal preemption of that
authority. When Congress intended to create such Federal preemption, it
does so through explicit provisions. See, e.g., section 209(a) of the
Act, which pertains to state or local emissions standards for motor
vehicles; and section 211 of the Act which pertains to fuel standards.
Moreover, the very structure of the Act is based upon ``cooperative
federalism,'' which contemplates that each state will develop its own
state implementation plan, and that states retain a large degree of
flexibility in choosing which sources to control and to what degree in
order to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. Union
Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976). Given the structure of the
Act, the mere fact that one state might choose to regulate sources
differently than another state is not, in and of itself, contrary to
the Commerce Clause.
Finally, EPA understands that there may be a practical concern that
a plethora of state regulations creating a checkerboard of differing
requirements would not be the best approach to regulating VOCs from AIM
coatings or other consumer products. Greater uniformity of standards
does have beneficial effects in terms of more cost effective and
efficient regulations. As EPA noted in its own AIM coatings rule,
national uniformity in regulations is also an important goal because it
will facilitate more effective regulation and enforcement, and minimize
the opportunities for undermining the intended VOC emission reductions.
63 FR 48856-48857. However, EPA also recognizes that Maryland and other
states with longstanding ozone nonattainment problems have local needs
for VOC reductions that may necessitate more stringent coatings
regulations. Under section 116 of the Act, states have the authority to
do so, and significantly, many states in the Northeast have joined
together to prepare and promulgate regulations more restrictive than
the Federal AIM coatings rule to apply uniformly across that region.
This regional collaboration provides regional uniformity of standards.
Maryland may have additional burdens to insure compliance with its
rule, but for purposes of this action, EPA presumes that Maryland take
appropriate actions to enforce it as necessary. EPA has no grounds for
disapproval of the SIP revision based upon the commenters' Commerce
Clause comment.
5. Comment: The MD AIM Coatings Rule Is Arbitrary and Capricious
Because the Record Supporting It Is Deficient--The commenters assert
that the Maryland AIM coatings rule violates the Maryland law as being
arbitrary and capricious, because the record supporting Maryland's
actions is deficient in numerous areas. First, the commenters allege
that MDE has not undertaken any independent cost analyses, and instead
relied solely on information used by CARB to support the suggested
control measure (SCM). Second, the commenters assert that MDE failed to
address any relevant differences between climatic conditions or the
markets for the regulated products in Maryland and California. Finally,
the commenters assert that Maryland's adoption of its AIM coatings rule
is arbitrary and capricious because its does not include an averaging
provision for inclusion in Maryland SIP as advocated by the commenters.
Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. The cost per ton figure
determined by Maryland in its economic analysis, its decision to rely
upon information from California and its decision whether to include
averaging provisions in its final AIM coatings rule, are all decisions
which fall within a state's purview, and issues regarding those
decisions are rightly raised by interested parties to the state during
its regulatory adoption process. Maryland's March 19, 2004 SIP revision
submittal provides evidence that it has the legal authority to adopt
its AIM coatings rule and that it has followed all of the requirements
in the State law that are related to adoption of the plan. As noted in
BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2004):
[T]he CAA only requires that the states provide ``necessary
assurances that the State * * * will have adequate * * * authority
under State (and as appropriate, local) law to carry out such
implementation plan (and it is not prohibited by any provision of *
* * State law from carrying out such implementation plan or portion
thereof).'' 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(E)(i). There is no statutory
requirement that the EPA review SIP submissions to ensure compliance
with state law * * * . Such a requirement would be extremely
burdensome and negate the rationale for having the state provide the
assurances in the first instance. The EPA is entitled to rely on a
state's certification unless it is clear that the SIP violates state
law, and proof thereof, such as a state court decision, is presented
to EPA during the SIP approval process. 355 F.3d 817, n.11 at 830.
The commenters have offered no proof, such as a state court decision,
that Maryland's AIM coatings rule clearly violates local law. EPA
therefore is relying on Maryland's certification that it had the legal
authority to adopt its AIM coatings rule and that it has followed all
of the requirements in the State law that are related to adoption of
this SIP revision.
6. Comment: The Emission Limits and Compliance Schedule in the MD
AIM Coatings Rule Are Neither Necessary nor Appropriate To Meet
Applicable Requirements of the Clean Air Act--The commenters claim that
the Maryland AIM coatings rule is not ``necessary or appropriate'' for
inclusion in the Maryland SIP, because EPA did not direct Maryland to
achieve VOC reductions through the AIM coatings rule, but left it to
the State to decide how such reductions can be achieved. The commenters
further claim that the Maryland AIM coatings rule is not necessary or
appropriate for inclusion in the Maryland SIP because of the numerous
alleged procedural and substantive failings on the part of MDE in
promulgating the rule. The commenters assert that prior to proposing a
SIP revision, the state must first provide reasonable notice and a
public hearing, thereby implying that Maryland failed to do so.
Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. If fulfillment of the
``necessary or appropriate'' condition of section 110(a)(2)(A) required
EPA first to determine that a measure was
[[Page 24985]]
necessary or appropriate and then to require a state to adopt that
measure, this condition would present a ``catch 22'' situation. EPA
does not generally have the authority to require the State to enact and
include in its SIP any particular control measure, even a ``necessary''
one.\8\ However, under section 110(a)(2)(a) a control measure must be
either ``necessary or appropriate'' (emphasis added); the use of the
disjunctive ``or'' does not provide that a state must find that only a
certain control measure and no other measure will achieve the required
reduction. Rather, a state may adopt and propose for inclusion in its
SIP any measure that meets the other requirements for approvability so
long as that measure is at least an appropriate, though not exclusive,
means of achieving emissions reduction. See also, Union Elec. Co. v.
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 264-266 (1976) (holding that ``necessary'' measures
are those that meet the `minimum conditions' of the Act, that a state
``may select whatever mix of control devices it desires,'' even ones
more stringent than Federal standard, to achieve compliance with a
NAAQS, and that ``the Administrator must approve such plans if they
meet the minimum requirements'' of section 110(a)(2) of the Act).
Clearly, in light of the Act and the case law, EPA's failure to specify
that state adopt a specific control measure cannot dictate whether a
specific measure is necessary or appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ As noted in Virginia v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397 (D.C. Cir. 1997),
EPA does have the authority within the mechanism created by section
184 of the Act to order states to adopt control measures recommended
by the OTC, if EPA agrees with and approves that recommendation. 108
F.3d, n.3 at 1402. As we have previously stated, the OTC model AIM
coatings rule was not developed pursuant to the section 184
mechanism; EPA therefore has no authority to order that Maryland or
any other state adopt this measure in order to reduce VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this particular instance, EPA identified an emission reduction
shortfall associated with Maryland's 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration SIPs for the Baltimore and Philadelphia areas, and
required Maryland (and Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania in the
case of the Philadelphia area) to address the shortfalls (See, 64 FR
70460 (December 16, 1999) and 66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001)). Maryland
also needs reductions to satisfy the requirements for rate-of-progress
(ROP) and attainment plans (including contingency measures) for the
reclassified Metropolitan Washington DC severe 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area. It is the State's prerogative to develop whatever
rule or set of rules it deems necessary or appropriate such that the
rule or rules will collectively achieve the additional emission
reductions needed to satisfy the ROP and attainment plan requirements
for its 1-hour ozone severe nonattainment areas. Because commenters
might find it more necessary or appropriate to obtain the needed VOC
emission reductions elsewhere is not a basis for EPA to disapprove the
rule implementing Maryland's determination of the best approach to
obtain the needed reductions.
EPA also disagrees with the commenters' view of Maryland's public
notice and hearing procedure. In its March 19, 2004 SIP revision
submittal, the MDE included copies of the public notices published in
six newspapers throughout the State of Maryland, including the
Baltimore Sun and Washington Post, announcing its intent to adopt the
AIM coatings rule, to submit the rule to EPA as a SIP revision, and to
hold a public hearing (providing date, time, venue), and instructions
for submitting comments. From the documentation provided in its March
19, 2004 submittal and from the fact that both commenters testified and
submitted written comments pursuant to the hearing and these published
notices, EPA believes that Maryland fulfilled the requirements of
section 110(a) of the Act with respect to reasonable notice and a
public hearing in connection with SIP revision submissions. As stated
previously, Maryland's March 19, 2004 SIP revision submittal provides
evidence that it has the legal authority to adopt its AIM coatings rule
and that it has followed all of the requirements in the State law and
constitution that are related to adoption of the plan (see EPA's
response to Comment B.5.). See BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817,
n.11 at 830. (EPA may rely on the state's certification that it has
complied with applicable state requirements for promulgating a rule
submitted as a revision to its SIP.)
7. Comment: The commenters claim that EPA's action to approve or
disapprove Maryland's AIM coatings rule is a ``significant regulatory
action'' as defined by Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 (September
30, 1993).
Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. 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. The commenters allege
that EPA's approval of the Maryland AIM coatings rule is a
``significant regulatory action'' because it meets several of the
following criteria specified in Executive Order 12866: ``[it will have]
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or [it will]
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities
* * *.'' However, this action merely approves existing state law as
meeting Federal requirements. EPA's approval of this SIP revision
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, this action meets none of the criteria listed above. Any
cost or any material adverse effects on the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities
exist, if at all, due to Maryland's approval of its state AIM coatings
rule, not by EPA's approval of that rule into the Maryland SIP. If EPA
failed to act on the Maryland AIM coatings rule, the effects of the
rule would not be changed because this rule went effect in Maryland on
January 1, 2005. Nothing that EPA might do at this point in time alters
that fact.
Furthermore, Maryland voluntarily adopted its version of the OTC
model AIM coatings rule and, as the commenters themselves acknowledge,
EPA legally could not impose this control measure on the State.
Virginia v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397 (D.C. Cir. 1997). EPA's approval of this
state rule merely fulfills its statutory obligation under the Act to
review SIP submissions and approve state choices, provided that they
meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the Maryland SIP revision for the control of VOC
emissions from AIM coatings rule submitted on March 19, 2004. The
Maryland AIM coatings rule is part of Maryland's strategy to satisfy
the requirements of its severe ozone nonattainment areas and to achieve
and maintain the ozone standard throughout the State of Maryland.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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,
[[Page 24986]]
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
requirement, 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.).
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 July 11, 2005. 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, pertaining to Maryland's AIM coatings
rule, 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, Incorporation by reference, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 2, 2005.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart V--Maryland
0
2. In Sec. 52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding
entries for COMAR 26.11.33 through 26.11.33.14 to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1070 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Regulations in the Maryland SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
Code of Maryland State explanation/
Administrative Regulations Title/subject effective date EPA approval date citation at 40 CFR
(COMAR) citation 52.1100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------
26.11.33 Architectural Coatings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26.11.33.01.................. Applicability and 3/29/04 5/12/05 [Insert ..................
Exemptions. page number where
the document
begins].
26.11.33.02.................. Test Methods-- 3/29/04 5/12/05 [Insert ..................
Incorporation by page number where
Reference. the document
begins].
26.11.33.03.................. Definitions............. 3/29/04 5/12/05 [Insert ..................
page number where
the document
begins].
[[Page 24987]]
26.11.33.04.................. General Standard--VOC 3/29/04 5/12/05 [Insert ..................
Content Limits. page number where
the document
begins].
26.11.33.05.................. VOC Content Limits...... 3/29/04 5/12/05 [Insert ..................
page number where
the document
begins].
26.11.33.06.................. Most Restrictive VOC 3/29/04 5/12/05 [Insert ..................
Limit. page number where
the document
begins].
26.11.33.07.................. Painting Restrictions... 3/29/04 5/12/05 [Insert ..................
page number where
the document
begins].
26.11.33.08.................. Thinning................ 3/29/04 5/12/05 [Insert ..................
page number where
the document
begins].
26.11.33.09.................. Rust Preventive Coatings 3/29/04 5/12/05 [Insert ..................
page number where
the document
begins].
26.11.33.10.................. Coatings Not Listed in 3/29/04 5/12/05 [Insert ..................
Regulation .05. page number where
the document
begins].
26.11.33.11.................. Lacquers................ 3/29/04 5/12/05 [Insert ..................
page number where
the document
begins].
26.11.33.12.................. Container Labeling 3/29/04 5/12/05 [Insert ..................
Requirements. page number where
the document
begins].
26.11.33.13.................. Reporting Requirements.. 3/29/04 5/12/05 [Insert ..................
page number where
the document
begins].
26.11.33.14.................. Compliance Provisions 3/29/04 5/12/05 [Insert ..................
and Test Methods. page number where
the document
begins].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-9314 Filed 5-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P