Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28773 

is actively considering the possibility of 

including in the Office’s updated regulations 

provisions that would enhance or expand 

upon the details required for including all 

steps in rate calculation. See Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, Mechanical and 

Digital Phonorecord Delivery Compulsory 

License 77 FR 44179 (July 27, 2012). 

B. Whether the ‘‘confidentiality 

requirement’’ proposed for 37 CFR 385.12(f) 

and 385.22(e) encroach upon the exclusive 

statutory domain of the Register under § 115 

of the Act. 

As the Settling Participants accurately set 

forth, the ‘‘confidentiality requirement’’ does 

not address the form, content, and manner of 

certification of statements of account. As 

such, the proposed ‘‘confidentiality 

requirement’’ does not encroach upon the 

Register’s authority with respect to 

statements of account as provided in 17 

U.S.C. 115(c)(5). Furthermore, the Register is 

not aware that the ‘‘confidentiality 

requirement’’ conflicts with any other 

authority reserved for the Register. However, 

the Register also notes that it is unclear 

whether the CRJs have any independent 

authority to issue regulations such as the 

proposed ‘‘confidentiality requirement’’ 

which would impose obligations on a 

copyright owner with regard to what he or 

she is able to do with a statement of account 

received by a licensee. The Register, suggests 

that the question of whether the CRJs have 

authority to issue regulations imposing 

requirements on what a copyright owner (as 

opposed to a licensee) may do (or not do) 

with information in a statement of account 

after that statement has been prepared and 

served in accordance with the Office’s 

regulations, represents a novel question of 

law that may be separately referred to the 

Register. If such a novel question is referred 

to the Register, the Register submits that the 

participants should be afforded an 

opportunity to brief that specific issue, which 

was not adequately addressed in the 

participants’ brief on the instant referral. If 

such a novel question is referred, the Register 

encourages the participants to cite specific 

sources supporting the view that the CRJs 

enjoy such authority. 

May 1, 2013. 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Maria A. Pallante, 

Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11560 Filed 5–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0066; FRL– 9814–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Adoption of Control 

Techniques Guidelines for 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Which Includes Pleasure Craft Coating 

Operations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Maryland State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE) on January 10, 

2013. The SIP revision consists of a new 

regulation pertaining to control of 

volatile organic compound emissions 

from pleasure craft coating operations. 

This action is being taken under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 17, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2013–0066 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0066, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the 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 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2013– 

0066. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by 

email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. EPA Action 

II. Background 

III. SIP Revision Submitted by the State of 

Maryland 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

I. EPA Action 

EPA is proposing to approve revisions 

to Maryland’s SIP which were 

submitted by MDE on January 10, 2013. 

The SIP revision submittal adopts the 

requirements as recommended by EPA’s 

control technique guidelines (CTG) for 

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Plastic 

Coating (MMPPC) operations and as 

recommended by trade associations 

representing the pleasure craft industry. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
28774 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Specifically, MDE has added Regulation 

.27–1 under COMAR 26.11.19 to reduce 

further volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions from pleasure craft 

coating operations. This revision reflects 

technology developments and expands 

VOC emission controls, as well as 

reflects the recommended reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) 

requirements in EPA’s CTG for MMPPC. 

II. Background 

Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides 

that SIPs for nonattainment areas must 

include reasonably available control 

measures (RACM), including RACT, for 

sources of emissions. Section 

182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain 

nonattainment areas, states must revise 

their SIP to include RACT for sources of 

VOC emissions covered by a CTG 

document issued after November 15, 

1990 and prior to the area’s date of 

attainment. EPA defines RACT as ‘‘the 

lowest emission limitation that a 

particular source is capable of meeting 

by the application of control technology 

that is reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility.’’ 

(44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979). 

CTGs are documents issued by EPA 

intended to provide state and local air 

pollution control authorities 

information that should assist them in 

determining RACT for VOC from 

various sources. Section 183(e)(3)(c) 

provides that EPA may issue a CTG in 

lieu of a national regulation as RACT for 

a product category where EPA 

determines that the CTG will be 

substantially as effective as regulations 

in reducing emissions of VOC in ozone 

nonattainment areas. The 

recommendations in the CTG are based 

upon available data and information 

and may not apply to a particular 

situation based upon the circumstances. 

States can follow the CTG and adopt 

state regulations to implement the 

recommendations contained therein, or 

they can adopt alternative approaches. 

In either case, states must submit their 

RACT rules to EPA for review and 

approval as part of the SIP process. 

EPA developed the CTG for MMPPC 

in September 2008. The miscellaneous 

metal product and plastic parts surface 

coatings categories under section 183(e) 

of the CAA include the coatings that are 

applied to the surfaces of a varied range 

of metal and plastic parts and products. 

Such parts or products are constructed 

either entirely or partially from metal or 

plastic. These miscellaneous metal 

products and plastic parts include, but 

are not limited to, metal and plastic 

components of the following types of 

products as well as the products 

themselves: Fabricated metal products, 

molded plastic parts, small and large 

farm machinery, commercial and 

industrial machinery and equipment, 

automotive or transportation equipment, 

interior or exterior automotive parts, 

construction equipment, motor vehicle 

accessories, bicycles and sporting goods, 

toys, recreational vehicles, pleasure 

craft (recreational boats), extruded 

aluminum structural components, 

railroad cars, heavier vehicles, lawn and 

garden equipment, business machines, 

laboratory and medical equipment, 

electronic equipment, steel drums, 

metal pipes, and numerous other 

industrial and household products. 

The pleasure craft coating category 

does not include coatings that are a part 

of other product categories listed under 

Section 183(e) of the CAA for which 

CTGs have been published or included 

in other CTGs. As a result, members of 

the pleasure craft coatings industry 

contacted EPA requesting 

reconsideration of the pleasure craft 

VOC limits contained in EPA’s 2008 

MMPPC CTG. In response, EPA issued 

a memorandum on June 1, 2010, titled 

‘‘Control Technique Guidelines for 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part 

Coatings—Industry Request for 

Reconsideration,’’ recommending that 

the pleasure craft industry work with 

state agencies during their RACT rule 

development process to assess what is 

reasonable for the specific sources 

regulated. EPA has stated that states can 

use the recommendations from the 

MMPPC CTG to form their own 

determinations as to what constitutes 

RACT for pleasure craft coating 

operations in their particular ozone 

nonattainment area. CTGs impose no 

legally binding requirements on any 

entity, including pleasure craft coating 

facilities. As stated in the memorandum, 

EPA will evaluate state-developed 

RACT rules and determine whether the 

submitted rules meet the RACT 

requirements of the CAA. 

III. SIP Revision Submitted by the State 

of Maryland 

On January 10, 2013, MDE submitted 

a SIP revision adopting the 

recommendations contained in both 

EPA’s MMPPC CTG and in comments 

from trade associations representing the 

pleasure craft industry for the control of 

VOC as RACT. The SIP revision adds 

Regulation .27–1 under COMAR 

26.11.19 in order to: (1) Establish 

applicability for pleasure craft and 

fiberglass boat coating operations at 

facilities with actual VOC emissions of 

15 pounds or more per day (15 lb/day) 

from coating operations as determined 

on a monthly average on or after January 

1, 2013; (2) establish exemptions for 

certain types of coatings; (3) add 

definitions and terms to reflect pleasure 

craft coating operations; (4) incorporate 

by reference the standard test method 

for Specular Gloss; (5) establish that the 

least stringent emission limitation is 

applicable if more than one emission 

limitation applies to a specific coating; 

(6) establish application methods; and 

(7) specify VOC limit requirements for 

pleasure craft coating operations in 

Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—PLEASURE CRAFT COATING STANDARDS

[Expressed in terms of mass of VOC per volume of coating excluding water and exempt compounds, as applied] 

Coating types Pounds (lbs) 

VOC/gallon 

Kilograms (kg) 

VOC/liter 

Extreme high gloss topcoat ..................................................................................................................... 5.0 0.60 

High gloss topcoat ................................................................................................................................... 3.5 0.42 

Pretreatment wash primers ..................................................................................................................... 6.5 0.78 

Finish primer/surface: 

Applicable through March 31, 2014 ................................................................................................. 5.0 0.60 

Applicable through March 31, 2014 ................................................................................................. 3.5 0.42 

High build primer/surface ......................................................................................................................... 2.8 0.34 

Aluminum substrate antifoulant coating .................................................................................................. 4.7 0.56 

Antifouling sealer/tiecoat .......................................................................................................................... 3.5 0.42 

Other substrate antifoulant coating ......................................................................................................... 3.3 0.40 

All other pleasure craft surface coatings ................................................................................................. 3.5 0.42 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28775 

More detailed information on these 

provisions can be found in the technical 

support document located in the docket 

prepared for this rulemaking action. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the State 

of Maryland SIP revision submitted on 

January 10, 2013, adopting the 

requirements as recommended by the 

MMPPC CTG and adopting the pleasure 

craft industry recommendations for the 

following four coating categories: Finish 

Primer/Surfacer; Antifouling Sealer/ 

Tiecoat; Other Substrate Antifoulant; 

and Extreme High Gloss. For these four 

categories, Maryland reviewed industry 

data and determined that for the 

purpose of functionality, cost, and VOC 

emissions, the alternative limits adopted 

for these four coating categories 

constitute RACT. EPA believes that 

Maryland’s approach is consistent with 

the guidance memorandum entitled, 

‘‘Control Technique Guidelines for 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part 

Coatings—Industry Request for 

Reconsideration,’’ and therefore, 

believes that these regulations reflect 

RACT. EPA concurs with MDE’s 

analysis in the SIP submittal that this 

regulation reflects RACT. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule, 

pertaining to the State of Maryland’s 

amendments to regulations for the 

control of VOCs for MMPPC, does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: May 2, 2013. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11789 Filed 5–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2007–0602; FRL–9813–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina; 

State Implementation Plan 

Miscellaneous Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a portion of a revision to the North 

Carolina State Implementation Plan 

submitted on February 3, 2010, through 

the North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources. 

This revision updates the North 

Carolina SIP to reflect EPA’s current 

national ambient air quality standards 

for ozone, lead and particulate matter 

found in the Code of Federal 

Regulations. In the Final Rules Section 

of this Federal Register, EPA is 

approving the State’s implementation 

plan revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this document. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this 

document should do so at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 17, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2007–0602 by one of the following 

methods: 

(a) www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

(b) Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 

(c) Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

(d) Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2007–0602, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

(e) Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 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. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1