[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 240 (Thursday, December 15, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74259-74262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-24076]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2005-ME-0003; A-1-FRL-8008-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maine; Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings
Regulation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Maine. This revision establishes
requirements to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
architectural and industrial maintenance coatings. The intended effect
of this action is to propose approval of these requirements. This
action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 17, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in
EDocket (RME) ID Number R01-OAR-2005-ME-0003 by one of the following
methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
2. Agency Web site: http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ Regional Material
in EDocket (RME), EPA's electronic public docket and comment system,
will be replaced by an enhanced federal-wide electronic docket
management and comment system located at http://www.regulations.gov. On
November 28, 2005, when that occurs, you will be redirected to that
site to access the docket EPA-R01-OAR-2005-ME-0003 and submit comments.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
3. E-mail: [email protected].
4. Fax: (617) 918-0661.
5. Mail: ``RME ID Number R01-OAR-2005-ME-0003,'' David Conroy,
Chief, Air Programs Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code
CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023.
6. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: David
Conroy, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
One
[[Page 74260]]
Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Regional Material in EDocket
(RME) ID Number R01-OAR-2005-ME-0003. EPA's policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public docket without change and may
be made available online at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, 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 Regional Material in EDocket (RME), regulations.gov, or e-mail.
The EPA RME Web site and the federal regulations.gov Web site are
``anonymous access'' systems, 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through RME or regulations.gov, your e-mail 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
Regional Material in EDocket (RME) index at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. 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 RME or in hard copy at Office of
Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New
England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA.
EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Arnold, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023,
(617) 918-1047, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?
In addition to the publicly available docket materials available
for inspection electronically in Regional Material in EDocket, and the
hard copy available at the Regional Office, which are identified in the
ADDRESSES section above, copies of the state submittal and EPA's
technical support document are also available for public inspection
during normal business hours, by appointment at the Bureau of Air
Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, First Floor of
the Tyson Building, Augusta Mental Health Institute Complex, Augusta,
ME 04333-0017.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that
support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate
regional file/rulemaking identification number in the subject line on
the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you
provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your
comments.
II. Rulemaking Information
This section is organized as follows:
A. What action is EPA taking?
B. What are the requirements of Maine's new regulation?
C. Why is EPA proposing to approve this regulation?
D. What is the process for EPA to approve this SIP revision?
A. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to approve Maine's Chapter 151, ``Architectural
and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings,'' and to incorporate this
regulation into the Maine SIP.
B. What are the requirements of Maine's new regulation?
Maine's Chapter 151 applies to any person who supplies, sells,
offers for sale, or manufactures, any architectural coating for use
within the State of Maine and to any person who applies, or solicits
the application of, any architectural coating within the State of
Maine. The rule includes VOC content limits for several categories of
architectural coatings such as roof coatings, swimming pool coatings,
and traffic marking coatings. Aerosol coating products, as well as
architectural coatings sold in a container with a volume of one liter
or less, are exempt from the regulation.
In addition, Chapter 151 includes the appropriate testing and
recordkeeping requirements to ensure compliance with the specified
performance standards. Specifically, the rule requires the use of EPA
test methods and test procedures adopted by ASTM, South Coast AQMD, and
Bay Area AQMD. The rule also allows the use of alternative test methods
that have been approved by the Maine DEP and EPA. Finally, the rule
requires compliance with the specified VOC content limits by January 1,
2006 (with one exception).\1\ Coatings manufactured prior to January 1,
2006, however, may be sold, supplied, offered for sale, or applied
after January 1, 2006, so long as the coating complied with the
standards in effect at the time the coating was manufactured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The rule includes both a January 1, 2006 and a January 1,
2011 emission limit for varnishes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Why is EPA proposing to approve this regulation?
EPA has evaluated Maine's Chapter 151 and has found that this
regulation is generally consistent with EPA guidance and the Ozone
Transport Commission (OTC) model rule for AIM coatings. The specific
requirements of the regulation and EPA's evaluation of these
requirements are detailed in a
[[Page 74261]]
memorandum dated November 10, 2005, entitled ``Technical Support
Document--Maine--Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings
Regulation'' (TSD). The TSD and Maine's Chapter 151 are available in
the docket supporting this action.
The OTC has developed model rules for several VOC source
categories, and the OTC states, including Maine, have signed a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) committing to adopt these model
rules. One of the categories for which a model rule has been developed
is architectural coatings. (See ``OTC Model Rule for Architectural and
Industrial Maintenance Coatings,'' issued March 28, 2001.)
Several other OTC states have also recently adopted an AIM coatings
rule based on the OTC model rule, and EPA has already approved some of
these states' rules.\2\ The OTC model rule and Maine's rule include
emission limits that are at least as stringent as, and in some cases
more stringent than, EPA's AIM coatings rule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example, EPA approved Pennsylvania's AIM coatings rule
on November 23, 2004 (69 FR 68080), and New York's AIM rule on
December 13, 2004 (69 FR 72118).
\3\ See ``National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards
for Architectural Coatings,'' 40 CFR Part 59, Subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be noted, however, that there are two cases where the
emission limits in Maine's Chapter 151 differ from the limits in the
OTC model rule. Specifically, the OTC rule includes a 350 g VOC per
liter emission limit for varnishes. In contrast, Maine's rule includes
two emission limits for varnishes: (1) a 450 g VOC per liter emission
limit with a January 1, 2006 compliance date; and (2) a 350 g VOC per
liter limit with a January 1, 2011 compliance date. Maine's emission
limits are acceptable, however, because Maine's 2006 limit for
varnishes is consistent with EPA's limit for varnishes. Also, the
emission limits for stains in Maine's rule differ from those in the OTC
model rule. The OTC rule includes a 250 g VOC per liter limit for
stains. Maine's rule includes an emission limit of 550 g VOC per liter
for interior wood clear and semitransparent stains and a 250 g VOC per
liter limit for all other stains. Thus, Maine's rule is less stringent
for interior wood clear and semitransparent stains than the OTC rule.
Maine's 550 g VOC per liter limit is, however, acceptable since it is
consistent with the limit for interior wood clear and semitransparent
stains in EPA's rule.
EPA is aware that concerns have been raised about the achievability
of VOC content limits of some of the product categories under the Maine
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 Maine 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. EPA
has issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit
comments, data, and information for determining the emission reductions
achieved from architectural coating rules. (See 70 FR 51694; August 31,
2005.)
Maine did not submit its Chapter 151 SIP submittal to meet any
specific control requirements under the Clean Air Act. However,
subsequently, on June 9, 2005, Maine submitted its 5 percent increment
of progress plan which relies on reductions from Chapter 151. In
today's action, EPA is proposing to approve Chapter 151 because it will
strengthen Maine's SIP, and we are not deciding what level of emissions
reductions the rule will achieve. EPA will evaluate the reductions
Maine is claiming from Chapter 151 in its 5 percent increment of
progress plan when the Agency takes action on that plan.
D. What is the process for EPA to approve this SIP revision?
EPA is proposing to approve Maine's AIM coatings rule and is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this proposal or
on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before EPA
takes final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New
England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
proposal, or by submitting comments electronically, by mail, or through
hand delivery/courier following the directions in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION, I. General Information section of this proposal.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve Maine's Chapter 151, ``Architectural
and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings,'' and to incorporate this
regulation into the Maine SIP.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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 (Public Law 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), because it 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
[[Page 74262]]
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.)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 5, 2005.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 05-24076 Filed 12-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P