Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 77149

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R03–OAR–2004–DC–0007; FRL–7854–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia; VOC Emission Standards 

for AIM Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the District of 

Columbia (the District). This revision 

pertains to the volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emission standards 

for architectural and industrial 

maintenance (AIM) coatings in the 

District. This action is being taken 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 

Act).

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 26, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID Number R03–OAR–

2004–DC–0007 by one of the following 

methods: 

A. Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Agency Web site: http://

www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/RME,

EPA’s electronic public docket and 

comment system, is EPA’s preferred 

method for receiving comments. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

C. E-mail: morris.makeba@epa.gov.

D. Mail: R03–OAR–2004–DC–0007, 

Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality 

Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

E. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted 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 

RME ID No. R03–OAR–2004–DC–0007. 

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://

www.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 RME, 

regulations.gov or e-mail. The EPA RME 

and the Federal regulations.gov websites 

are 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 e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through RME or 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 RME 

index at http://www.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 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 District of Columbia 

Department of Public Health, Air 

Quality Division, 51 N Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose 

Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by e-mail at 

quinto.rose@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

16, 2004, the District of Columbia (the 

District) submitted several revisions to 

its SIP. The SIP revisions include both 

new regulations and amendments to 

Title 20 of the District of Columbia 

Municipal Regulations (20 DCMR). The 

new regulations in Title 20 DCMR 

(Environment), Subtitle A: Air Quality, 

Chapter 7, Volatile Organic Compounds 

are: 

(1) New Section 718—‘‘Mobile 

Equipment Repair and Refinishing’’. 

(2) New Sections 719 through 734—

‘‘Consumer Products’’. 

(3) New Sections 735 through 741—

‘‘Portable Fuel Containers and Spouts’’. 

(4) New Sections 742 through 748—

‘‘Solvent Cleaning’’.

(5) New Sections 749 through 754—

‘‘Architectural and Industrial 

Maintenance Coating’’. 

The April 16, 2004 submittal also 

includes new definitions that were 

added in section 799, a new section 307 

to Chapter 3—to provide for a fee 

penalty pursuant to section 185 of the 

Act, and amendments to Chapters 1, 2, 

6, 7, and 8 to satisfy the Act’s 

requirements for severe ozone 

nonattainment areas pursuant to the 

Metropolitan Washington DC 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment area’s 

reclassification on January 24, 2004 

from serious to severe nonattainment. 

On September 20, 2004, the District 

supplemented its April 16, 2004 

submittal. This supplemental submittal 

provides copies of standards that are 

incorporated by reference in the 

Districts’s new and amended regulations 

and a copy of the District’s responses to 

comments it received during its rule 

adoption process. On November 26, 

2004, the District submitted another 

supplemental revision to its April 16, 

2004 submittal. This supplemental 

submittal consists of revised versions of 

the new VOC regulations. These are 

minor revisions to the regulations which 

clarify the standards that are 

incorporated by reference and correct 

cross-referencing and typographical 

errors. This proposed action concerns 

only new sections 749 through 754 

(AIM Coatings) and revised section 799 

containing the associated definitions for 

the District’s AIM coatings rule. The 

remaining SIP revisions submitted on 

April 16, 2004 and supplemented on 

September 20, 2004 and November 26, 

2004 are the subjects of separate 

rulemaking actions. 

I. Background 

As stated previously, this proposed 

approval pertains only to the District’s 

regulations for AIM coatings. The 

standards and requirements contained 

in the District’s AIM coatings rule are 

based on the Ozone Transport 

Commission (OTC) model rule. The 

OTC developed control measures into 

model rules for a number of source 

categories. The OTC AIM coatings 

model rule is based on the existing rules 

developed by the California Air 

Resources Board, which were analyzed 

and modified by the OTC workgroup to

77150 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

address VOC reduction needs in the 

Ozone Transport Region (OTR). 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The District’s AIM coatings rule 

(sections 749 through 754) applies to 

any person who supplies, sells, offers 

for sale, or manufactures, applies or 

solicits the application of any AIM 

coating on or after January 1, 2005 

within the District. The rule does not 

apply to the following: (1) Any AIM 

coating that is sold or manufactured for 

use outside of the District, or for 

shipment to other manufacturers for 

reformulation or repackaging; (2) any 

aerosol coating product; or (3) any 

architectural coating that is sold in a 

container with a volume of one liter 

(1.057 quarts) or less. The rule sets 

specific VOC content limits, in grams 

per liter, for AIM coating categories with 

a compliance date of January 1, 2005. 

The rule contains administrative 

requirements for labeling and reporting 

as well as text methods for 

demonstrating compliance. The test 

methods used to test coatings must be 

the most current approved method at 

the time testing is performed. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve a 

revision to the District of Columbia SIP 

to establish a regulation for the control 

of emissions from AIM coatings 

(sections 749 through 754), and also 

section 799 containing the associated 

definitions for the AIM coatings rule. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

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 proposes 

to approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

proposed 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 proposes to 

approve 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 proposed rule 

also does 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), nor will 

it 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 

proposes to approve 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 proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (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. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 

this proposed rule, EPA has taken the 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA 

has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by 

examining the takings implications of 

the rule in accordance with the 

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental 

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 

and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings’’ issued under the executive 

order. 

This proposed rule pertaining to the 

District of Columbia’s AIM coatings 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, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: December 14, 2004. 

Donald S. Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 04–28200 Filed 12–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION 

SAFETY BOARD 

49 CFR Part 830

Notification and Reporting of Aircraft 

Accidents or Incidents and Overdue 

Aircraft, and Preservation of Aircraft 

Wreckage, Mail, Cargo, and Records

AGENCY: National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The NTSB is proposing to 

amend 49 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR) Part 830, ‘‘Notification and 

Reporting of Aircraft Accidents or 

Incidents and Overdue Aircraft, and 

Preservation of Aircraft Wreckage, Mail, 

Cargo, and Records,’’ to include certain 

events that are not currently covered by 

the regulations. This amendment is 

intended to enhance aviation safety by 

providing the NTSB direct notification 

of these events so that we can 

investigate and take corrective actions 

in a timely manner.

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

February 25, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments concerning 

this proposed rule to Deepak Joshi, Lead 

Aerospace Engineer (Structures), 

National Transportation Safety Board, 

Room 5235, 490 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 

Washington, DC 20594.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deepak Joshi, (202) 314–6348.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Proposed Revision to § 830.2, 

Definitions 

Part 830 requires that an event that 

results in substantial damage to a civil 

or public aircraft not operated by the 

Armed Forces or an intelligence agency 

be reported to the NTSB. We are 

proposing to modify the current 

definition of substantial damage in