53544 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: September 26, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(224)(i)(E) to read

as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(224) * * *

(i) * * *

(E) Santa Barbara County Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Amended Rule 370 adopted on

June 15, 1995.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–27265 Filed 10–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD 040–3017a; FRL–5906–1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Maryland; Control of Volatile Organic

Compound Emissions From Yeast

Manufacturing, Screen Printing,

Expandable Polystyrene Operations,

and Bakeries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions

submitted by the State of Maryland on

July 12, 1995. These revisions establish

reasonable available control technology

(RACT) volatile organic compound

(VOC) emission reduction requirements

for yeast manufacturing, screen printing,

expandable polystyrene operations

(EPOs), and bakeries throughout the

State of Maryland. The intended effect

of this action is to approve these

amendments to the Maryland SIP, in

accordance with the SIP submittal and

revision provisions of the Clean Air Act

(the Act). This action is being taken

under section 110 of the Act.

DATES: This final rule is effective

December 15, 1997, unless by November

14, 1997, adverse or critical comments

are received. If the effective date is

delayed, timely notice will be published

in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone/CO and

Mobile Sources Section, Mailcode

3AT21, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107. Copies of the documents relevant

to this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107 and the Maryland Department of

the Environment, 2500 Broening

Highway, Baltimore Maryland 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carolyn M. Donahue, (215) 566–2095, at

the EPA Region III office address listed

above, or via e-mail at

donahue.carolyn@epamail.epa.gov.

While information may be requested via

e-mail, comments must be submitted in

writing to the above Region III address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July

12, 1995, the Maryland Department of

the Environment (MDE) submitted new

regulations to EPA as SIP revisions.

These regulations control VOC

emissions throughout the state. MDE

submitted these SIP revision requests

pursuant to the rate-of-progress (ROP)

and RACT requirements of section 182

and 184 of the Act. Specifically,

Maryland has adopted VOC control

measures for yeast manufacturing,

screen printing, EPOs and bakeries.

Background

Section 182(b)(1) of the Act requires

states with ozone nonattainment areas

classified as moderate or above to

reduce VOC emissions 15% from 1990

baseline levels. States were required to

achieve the 15% VOC emission

reduction by 1996. This ROP

requirement, known as the 15% plan,

was due to EPA as a SIP revision by

November 15, 1993.

In Maryland, 15% plans were

required for the Baltimore severe ozone

nonattainment area, the Maryland

portion of the Philadelphia severe ozone

nonattainment area, and the Maryland

portion of the Washington, DC serious

ozone nonattainment area. Maryland

submitted the required 15% plans to

EPA as SIP revisions on July 12, 1995.

In these 15% plans, Maryland takes

credit for the emission reductions

achieved through the VOC regulations

that Maryland submitted as SIP

revisions on July 12, 1995, including

Maryland’s yeast manufacturing, screen

printing, EPO, and bakery regulations.

Furthermore, the VOC emission

reductions achieved by these

regulations are needed to achieve the

15% reduction in the Baltimore plan.

Section 184(b)(1)(B) of the Act

requires areas in the Ozone Transport

Region (OTR) to implement RACT

regulations for all VOC sources that

have the potential to emit 50 TPY or

more. In addition, section 182(b)(2)

requires states to implement RACT

regulations on all ‘‘major’’ sources of

VOC in moderate or above ozone

nonattainment areas. Major VOC

sources are those with the potential to

emit at least 100 TPY in moderate areas,

50 TPY in serious areas, and 25 TPY in

severe areas. Because Maryland is in the

OTR, the State is required to implement

RACT regulations for all sources with

the potential to emit 50 TPY or more,

throughout the state. Furthermore, in

Maryland’s severe ozone nonattainment

areas, RACT is required for all VOC

sources with the potential to emit 25

TPY or more. States were required to

submit these RACT regulations to EPA

as SIP revisions by November 15, 1992.

Sources were required to comply with

RACT by May 31, 1995.

Maryland submitted a generic VOC

RACT regulation to EPA as a SIP

revision on April 5, 1991. On June 8,

1993, Maryland submitted amendments

to this regulation to EPA as a SIP

revision. The generic RACT regulation

does not contain any specific emission

limitations or requirements for major

sources, but instead allows the

establishment of RACT through the SIP

revision process for individual sources

or source categories. Maryland’s July 12,

1995 SIP revision submittals address the

RACT requirement for the following

four source categories: yeast

manufacturing, screen printing,

expandable polystyrene operations, and

bakeries.

Summary of SIP Revisions

Control of VOC Emissions from Yeast

Manufacturing (COMAR 26.11.19.17)

General Provisions

This new regulation establishes

standards for controlling VOC emissions

from yeast manufacturing. This

regulation establishes definitions for the

following terms: ‘‘fermentation batch,’’

‘‘first generation fermenter,’’ ‘‘stock

fermenter,’’ ‘‘trade fermenter,’’ and

‘‘yeast manufacturing installation.’’ An

owner or operator of a yeast

manufacturing installation at a premises

that has a potential to emit of 25 or more

tons/year from all yeast manufacturing

installations is subject to this regulation.

Compliance with this regulation was
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 53545

required by May 15, 1995. This

regulation does not apply to a

fermentation batch of any variety which

comprises less than 1% of the total

annual yeast production by weight.

General Requirements

A person subject to this rule may not

discharge VOC emissions from a yeast

manufacturing installation in excess of

the following concentrations: 100 parts

per million (ppm) for trade fermenters,

150 ppm for first generation fermenters,

and 300 ppm for stock fermenters.

Compliance with these emission limits

will be based on average undiluted VOC

concentration during the time of a

fermentation batch. Any yeast

manufacturing installation not subject to

these limits must monitor temperature,

pH, and sugar content of the batch to

minimize VOC emissions. This

temperature must be controlled so that

it is between 75 °F and 100 °F, and the

pH must be between 3.5 and 7.5.

Compliance and Testing

Stack tests, used to calculate

emissions concentrations from at least

four different effluent samples per hour

for the duration of the fermentation

batch, and continuous process monitors,

used to generate batch average

concentrations for each installation,

determine compliance with this

regulation. Stack tests must be

performed at least once every four years

after an initial stack test, which was

required to have been conducted before

October 1, 1995. A test protocol must be

submitted to MDE at least 30 days

before the tests are conducted.

Reporting Requirements

Quarterly reports on process

monitoring data must be submitted to

MDE by the 20th of the month after the

end of each calendar quarter. Stack test

reports must be submitted to MDE

within 60 days after each test.

EPA Evaluation: The controls on

fermenters in Maryland’s regulation

reduce VOC emissions from yeast

manufacturing installations. Maryland’s

recordkeeping and reporting provisions

ensure that this regulation is

enforceable. Therefore, this regulation,

which will achieve significant VOC

emission reductions from yeast

manufacturing operations in Maryland,

is fully approvable.

Control of VOC Emissions From Screen

Printing (COMAR 26.11.19.18)

General Provisions

This revision establishes VOC

controls for screen printers. This

regulation establishes definitions for the

following terms: ‘‘Acid/etch resist ink,’’

‘‘anoprint ink,’’ ‘‘back-up coating,’’

‘‘clear coating,’’ ‘‘conductive ink,’’

‘‘electroluminescent ink,’’ ‘‘exterior

illuminated sign,’’ ‘‘haze removal,’’ ‘‘ink

removal,’’ ‘‘maximum VOC content,’’

‘‘plastic card manufacturing

installation,’’ ‘‘plywood sign coating,’’

‘‘screen printing,’’ ‘‘screen printing

installation,’’ ‘‘screen reclamation,’’

‘‘specialty inks,’’ and ‘‘untreated sign

paper.’’

This regulation applies to an owner or

operator of a screen printing installation

or plastic card manufacturing

installation, or who coats plywood used

for signs, at a premises that has total

actual VOC emissions from all screen

printing, plastic card manufacturing,

and plywood coating installations of 20

or more pounds/day. These standards

apply to a person who prints or coats a

substrate in conjunction with or in

preparation for screen printing.

However, this regulation does not apply

to adhesives used for screen printing.

General Requirements

A person subject to this regulation

may not cause or permit the discharge

of VOC unless the following

requirements are observed, where lb/gal

is pounds per gallon and g/l is grams

per liter.

For Screen Printing:

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE VOC CONTENT IN LB/GAL (G/L) OF THE INK (AS APPLIED)

Product or substrate Up to 11/15/94

On or after 11/15/

94 and up to 7/15/

95

On or after 7/15/

95

Paper .......................................................................................................................... 5.6 (672) 5.6 (672) 3.3 (396)

Untreated sign paper .................................................................................................. 5.6 (672) 5.6 (672) 5.6 (672)

Glass .......................................................................................................................... 3.3 (396) 3.3 (396) 3.3 (396)

Metal ........................................................................................................................... 5.8 (696) 3.3 (396) 3.3 (396)

Plastic or vinyl, other than plastic cards .................................................................... 6.7 (804) 6.7 (804) 3.3 (396)

Reflective sheeting ..................................................................................................... 6.7 (804) 6.7 (804) 3.3 (396)

Textile/imprinted garments ......................................................................................... 3.3 (396) 3.3 (396) 3.3 (396)

Fine arts/serigraph ..................................................................................................... 6.7 (804) 6.7 (804) 3.3 (396)

Pressure sensitive decals .......................................................................................... 6.7 (804) 6.7 (804) 3.3 (396)

Plywood/wood ............................................................................................................ 5.0 (600) 5.0 (600) 3.3 (396)

A person subject to this regulation is in compliance if a control device that regulates VOC emissions from the

screen printing dryer by no less than 90% overall is installed.

For Plywood Sign Coating:

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE VOC CONTENT IN LB/GAL (G/L) OF THE COATING (AS APPLIED)

Coating Before 11/15/94 On or after 11/15/94

Back-up .................................................................................................................................... 1.0 (120) 1.0 (120)

Prime ........................................................................................................................................ 4.5 (540) 1.5 (180)

Main .......................................................................................................................................... 5.0 (600) 2.5 (300)

Clear ......................................................................................................................................... 4.5 (540) 3.3 (396)

For Plastic Card Manufacturing:

a. The VOC content of any ink or coating as applied may not exceed 6.2 lb/gal (744 g/l) until November 15,

1994, and 4.0 lb/gal (479 g/l) after July 15, 1995.

b. The isopropyl alcohol content of the fountain solution used in any offset lithographic printing on a plastic

card may not exceed 12% until December 31, 1994, and 8.5% after December 31, 1994. If used, this fountain solution
53546 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

must be refrigerated to 55 °F and monitored by a temperature indicator mounted on the tray holding the fountain

solution.

From Use of Specialty Inks, Clear Coating, and Ink and Haze Removal or Screen Reclamation:

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE VOC CONTENT IN LB/GAL (G/L) OF INK (AS APPLIED), INK REMOVAL OR RECLAMATION PRODUCT

Specialty ink Before 11/15/94 On or after 11/15/94

Acid/etch ................................................................................................................................... 4.7 (564) 3.3 (396)

Anoprint .................................................................................................................................... 6.2 (744) 3.1 (372)

Conductive ............................................................................................................................... 8.0 (960) 8.0 (960)

Electroluminescent ................................................................................................................... 8.0 (960) 8.0 (960)

Clear coating product or substrate:

Exterior illuminated signs .................................................................................................. 7.5 (900) 3.3 (396)

Other than exterior illuminated signs ................................................................................ 6.7 (804) 3.3 (396)

Removal or reclamation product:

Screen reclamation ........................................................................................................... N/A 1.0 (120)

Ink removal ....................................................................................................................... N/A 3.3 (390)

Haze removal .................................................................................................................... N/A 4.0 (480)

Record Keeping Requirements

Records must be maintained for at

least 3 years. These records must report

the total amount of ink, coating, or other

material containing VOC used each

month, the VOC content of the ink,

coating or other material used, and the

total monthly amount of isopropyl

alcohol used in plastic card

manufacturing installations. The records

must be available to MDE upon request.

A person who uses a control device to

achieve compliance with this regulation

must have performed a stack test by July

15, 1995 demonstrating compliance, and

include the VOC concentrations at the

inlet and outlet of the control device. A

test report must be submitted to MDE

within 60 days of the stack test.

EPA Evaluation: The controls on VOC

content of inks in screen printing

operations in Maryland’s regulation

reduce VOC emissions from these

operations. In addition, testing

requirements on the control device will

further reduce emissions from this

source category. Finally, Maryland’s

recordkeeping and reporting provisions

ensure that this regulation is

enforceable. Therefore, this regulation,

which will achieve significant VOC

emission reductions from screen

printing in Maryland, is fully

approvable.

Control of VOC Emissions From

Expandable Polystyrene Operations

(COMAR 26.11.19.19)

General Provisions

This new regulation establishes

standards for controlling VOC emissions

from EPOs. This regulation establishes

definitions for the following terms:

‘‘expandable polystyrene operation,’’

‘‘blowing agent,’’ ‘‘preexpander,’’

‘‘recycled expanded polystyrene,’’ and

‘‘reduced VOC content beads.’’ This

regulation is applicable to anyone

operating an EPO where the total actual

VOC emissions from all EPOs on the

premises is 20 or more pounds/day and

10 or more tons/year.

General and Testing Requirements

An EPO operator subject to this

regulation may not emit VOC unless one

of the following control measures is

used:

a. 10% or more recycled expanded

polystyrene is used in the incoming

feed at all times, and reduced VOC

content beads are used;

b. A VOC collection and destruction

system is installed to control

emissions from the preexpander by

85% or more overall;

c. Duct emissions from the preexpander

into the fire box of fuel-burning

equipment.

Spills of polystyrene beads must be

collected and any spilled material will

be put in a closed container to prevent

and suppress emissions.

If a control device is used, a stack test

must be performed to measure the VOC

concentration at the inlet and outlet of

the device. The initial test must be

performed no later than 90 days after

start-up, and additional stack tests shall

be performed at least once every 3 years

beginning 3 years after the initial test. A

report shall be submitted to MDE within

60 days of each stack test.

Record Keeping Requirements

Monthly records of the total weight of

beads used and the VOC content of the

beads must be maintained for at least 3

years. An EPO operator not subject to

this regulation must maintain records of

the daily and annual weight of the beads

and the VOC content of these beads, and

make these records available to MDE

upon request.

EPA Evaluation: The controls on

different components of EPOs in

Maryland’s regulation reduce VOC

emissions from these operations. In

addition, testing requirements on the

control device will further reduce

emissions from this source category.

Finally, Maryland’s recordkeeping and

reporting provisions ensure that this

regulation is enforceable. Therefore, this

regulation, which will achieve

significant VOC emission reductions

from EPOs in Maryland, is fully

approvable.

Control of VOC Emissions From

Commercial Bakery Ovens (COMAR

26.11.19.21)

General Provisions

This revision establishes new

standards for bakery operations. The

new regulation applies to a person who

owns or operates a bakery oven which

was built after 1942 and has a total

potential to emit of at least 25 tons of

VOC per year. This regulation applies to

the largest oven at such a facility. This

regulation establishes definitions for the

following terms: ‘‘commercial bakery

oven,’’ ‘‘fermentation time,’’ ‘‘yeast

percentage,’’ and ‘‘Yt value.’’

General Requirements

After May 15, 1996, a person who

owns or operates a bakery oven that

exceeds the average production tonnage

of finished bread, rolls or other yeastraised products and Yt value listed

below may not emit VOC unless the

emissions from the oven are directly

exhausted into a control device

designed to reduce VOC emissions by

80% or more.

a. 10,000 tons with a Yt value greater

than 11.0;

b. 15,000 tons with a Yt value between

8.1 and 11.0;

c. 22,500 tons with a Yt value less than

5.0 and 8.0;

d. 28,000 tons with a Yt value less than

5.0.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 53547

These control devices were required to

have been installed by July 15, 1995.

Requirements for Innovative Control

Methods

Innovative methods to control VOC

emissions can be used on commercial

bakery ovens by the owner or operator

if the methods are to the satisfaction of

MDE. Also, the owner or operator of the

oven must submit to MDE a design of

a conventional control system as well as

an expeditious schedule to construct the

system should the innovative control

method fail to reach compliance.

Reporting and Testing Requirements

A person who is subject to this

regulation and installs a control device

must perform a stack test within 90 days

after start-up of the control device, and

submit reports to MDE within 60 days

after completing the stack test.

EPA Evaluation: The requirement to

use control devices as well as

innovative control methods on

commercial bakery ovens will result in

significant VOC emission reductions.

Furthermore, Maryland’s recordkeeping,

reporting, and testing provisions ensure

that this regulation is enforceable.

Therefore, this regulation is fully

approvable.

EPA is approving these SIP revisions

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revisions should

adverse or critical comments be filed.

This action will be effective December

15, 1997 unless, by November 14, 1997,

adverse or critical comments are

received.

If EPA receives such comments, this

action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

If no such comments are received, the

public is advised that this action will be

effective on December 15, 1997.

Final Action

EPA is approving revisions to the

Maryland SIP to establish VOC RACT

requirements for bakeries, expandable

polystyrene operations, yeast

manufacturing, and screen printing

operations. These regulations achieve

fully enforceable VOC emission

reductions.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, the

Regional Administrator certifies that it

does not have a significant impact on

any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of a flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action proposed/promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action, pertaining to revisions to the

Maryland SIP establishing VOC control

requirements for yeast manufacturing,

screen printing, expandable polystyrene

operations, and bakeries, must be filed

in the United States Court of Appeals

for the appropriate circuit by December

15, 1997. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Regional

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 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, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: September 26, 1997.

Marcia E. Mulkey,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart V—Maryland

2. Section 52.1070 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(125) to read as

follows:
53548 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(125) Revisions to the Maryland State

Implementation Plan submitted on July

12, 1995 by the Maryland Department of

the Environment:

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Four letters dated July 12, 1995

from the Maryland Department of the

Environment transmitting additions to

Maryland’s State Implementation Plan,

pertaining to volatile organic compound

(VOC) regulations in Maryland’s air

quality regulations, COMAR 26.11.

(B) Regulations:

(1) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.17 Control of VOC Emissions

from Yeast Manufacturing, adopted by

the Secretary of the Environment on

October 14, 1994 and effective on

November 7, 1994, revisions adopted by

the Secretary of the Environment on

May 12, 1995, and effective on June 5,

1995, including the following:

(i) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.17.A Definitions, including

definitions for the terms ‘‘fermentation

batch,’’ ‘‘first generation fermenter,’’

‘‘stock fermenter,’’ ‘‘trade fermenter,’’

and ‘‘yeast manufacturing installation.’’

(ii) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.17.B Applicability,

Exemptions, and Compliance Date.

(iii) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.17.C Requirements for Yeast

Manufacturing Installations.

(iv) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.17.D Determination of

Compliance and Testing.

(v) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.17.E Reporting Requirements.

(vi) Amendment to COMAR

26.11.19.17.C(3), pertaining to limits for

temperature and pH.

(vii) Amendment to COMAR

26.11.19.17.D(3), pertaining to stack test

dates.

(2) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.18 Control of VOC Emissions

from Screen Printing, adopted by the

Secretary of the Environment on

October 14, 1994 and effective on

November 7, 1994, revisions adopted by

the Secretary of the Environment on

May 16, 1995 and effective on June 5,

1995, including the following:

(i) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.18.A, including definitions for

the terms ‘‘acid/etch resist ink,’’

‘‘anoprint ink,’’ ‘‘back-up coating,’’

‘‘clear coating,’’ ‘‘conductive ink,’’

‘‘electroluminescent ink,’’ ‘‘exterior

illuminated sign,’’ ‘‘haze removal,’’ ‘‘ink

removal,’’ ‘‘maximum VOC content,’’

‘‘plastic card manufacturing

installation,’’ ‘‘plywood sign coating,’’

‘‘screen printing,’’ ‘‘screen printing

installation,’’ ‘‘screen reclamation,’’

‘‘specialty inks.’’

(ii) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.18.B Applicability.

(iii) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.18.C General Requirements for

Screen Printing.

(iv) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.18.D General Requirements for

Plywood Sign Coating.

(v) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.18.E General Requirements for

Plastic Card Manufacturing

Installations.

(vi) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.18.F Control of VOC Emissions

from the Use of Specialty Inks.

(vii) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.18.G Control of VOC Emissions

from Clear Coating Operations.

(viii) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.18.H Control of VOC Emissions

from Ink and Haze Removal and Screen

Reclamation.

(ix) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.18.I.

(x) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.18.A(17), definition for the

term ‘‘untreated sign paper.’’

(xi) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.18.C(2), replacing previous

§ C(2).

(xii) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.18.C(3) Use of Control Devices.

(xiii) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.18.E(2)(b), replacing previous

§ E(2)(b).

(xiv) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.18.I Record Keeping, replacing

the previous § I.

(3) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.19 Control of VOC Emissions

from Expandable Polystyrene

Operations, adopted by the Secretary of

the Environment on June 9, 1995, and

effective on July 3, 1995, including the

following:

(i) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.19.A Definitions.

(ii) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.19.B Terms Defined, including

definitions for the terms ‘‘expandable

polystyrene operation (EPO),’’ ‘‘blowing

agent,’’ ‘‘preexpander,’’ ‘‘recycled

expanded polystyrene,’’ and ‘‘reduced

VOC content beads.’’

(iii) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.19.C Applicability.

(iv) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.19.D General Requirements.

(v) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.19.E Testing Requirements.

(vi) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.19.F Record Keeping.

(4) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.21, Control of VOC Emissions

from Commercial Bakery Ovens,

adopted by the Secretary of the

Environment on June 9, 1995, and

effective on July 3, 1995.

(i) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.21.A Definitions.

(ii) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.21.B Terms Defined, including

definitions for the terms ‘‘commercial

bakery oven,’’ ‘‘fermentation time,’’

‘‘yeast percentage,’’ and ‘‘Yt value.’’

(iii) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.21.C Applicability and

Exemptions.

(iv) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.21.D General Requirements.

(v) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.21.E Use of Innovative Control

Methods.

(vi) Addition of new COMAR

26.11.19.21.F Reporting and Testing

Requirements.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Remainder of July 12, 1995

Maryland State submittals pertaining to

COMAR 26.11.19.21, .17, .18, and .19.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–27260 Filed 10–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service

42 CFR Part 51

RIN 0905–AD99

Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration;

Requirements Applicable to Protection

and Advocacy of Individuals with

Mental Illness; Final Rule

AGENCY: Center for Mental Health

Services, Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration,

Department of Health and Human

Services.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On December 14, 1994, the

Department of Health and Human

Services (Department or HHS)

published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking to comply with the

requirements of section 116 of the

Protection and Advocacy for Mentally

III Individuals Act of 1986 (Act) (42

U.S.C. 10801 et seq.) which required

that the Secretary promulgate

regulations for the implementation of

authorized activities of Protection and

Advocacy (P&A) Systems to protect and

advocate the rights of individuals with

mental illness. The Department is

issuing this final rule to implement

Titles I and III of the Act.

These regulations will govern

activities carried out by the P&A

systems under the Act. The rule

includes: definitions; basic