60740 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R03–OAR–2005–MD–0011; FRL–7984–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Amendments to the Control 

of VOC 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 

amendments of controlling volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions 

from architectural and industrial 

maintenance (AIM) coatings in 

Maryland. EPA is approving this SIP 

revision in accordance with the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 18, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Regional 

Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number 

R03–OAR–2005–MD–0011. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the RME index at http:// 

www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. Once in 

the system, select ‘‘quick search,’’ then 

key in the appropriate RME 

identification number. Although listed 

in the electronic docket, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., confidential business information 

(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 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. 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: Rose 

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

quinto.rose@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On August 15, 2005 (70 FR 47757), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of 

Maryland. The NPR proposed approval 

of the amendments to the control of 

VOC emissions from AIM coatings in 

Maryland. The formal SIP revision was 

submitted by the Maryland Department 

of the Environment (MDE) on March 15, 

2005. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

This SIP revision amends a regulation 

to control emissions of VOC from AIM 

coatings in the State of Maryland. On 

March 15, 2005, MDE formally 

submitted its amendments to the AIM 

coatings rule as a SIP revision. These 

amendments are to provide consistency 

with similar regulations adopted by the 

other states in the Ozone Transport 

Region (OTR). These amendments are 

administrative changes that will not 

affect VOC reductions achieved through 

compliance with the coating standards. 

Other specific requirements of these 

amendments and the rationale for EPA’s 

proposed action are explained in the 

NPR and will not be restated here. No 

public comments were received on the 

NPR. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving Maryland’s 

amendments to the AIM coatings rule as 

a revision to the Maryland SIP. 

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, 

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). 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 19, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 60741 

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 December 19, 

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 the 

amendments to the Maryland 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, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: October 11, 2005. 

Donald S. Welsh, 

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 et seq. 

Subpart V—Maryland 

■ 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by revising the entry for 

COMAR 26.11.33 to read as follows: 

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE MARYLAND SIP 

Code of Maryland Administrative 

Regulations (COMAR) citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date 

Additional 

explanation/ 

Citation at 40 

CFR 52.1100 

* * * * * * * 

26.11.33—Architectural Coatings 

* * * * * * * 

26.11.33.06 ................................... Most Restrictive VOC Limit ......... 2/28/05 10/19/05 [Insert page number where 

the document begins].

Addition of 

sections 

B(15) 

through 

B(19). 

* * * * * * * 

26.11.33.10 ................................... Coatings Not Listed in Regulation 

.05.

2/28/05 10/19/05 [Insert page number where 

the document begins].

* * * * * * * 

26.11.33.12 ................................... Container Labeling Requirements 2/28/05 10/19/05 [Insert page number where 

the document begins].

Deleted section K. 

26.11.33.13 ................................... Record Keeping Requirements ... 2/28/05 10/19/05 [Insert page number where 

the document begins].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–20817 Filed 10–18–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R04–OAR–2003–KY–0001–200410(w); FRL–

7983–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans for Kentucky: 

Regulatory Limit on Potential To Emit; 

Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Due to adverse comment, EPA 

is withdrawing the direct final rule 

published August 24, 2005, (70 FR 

49493) approving a revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) of the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky. This 

revision incorporates Kentucky rule 401 

KAR 52:080 into the Kentucky SIP. This 

rule allows sources with a potential to 

emit (PTE) that equals or exceeds a title 

V major source threshold to be classified 

as minor sources if they restrict their 

actual emissions to less than 50 percent 

of the title V major source thresholds 

and meet other conditions specified in 

the rule. EPA stated in the direct final 

rule that if EPA received adverse 

comment by September 23, 2005, the 

rule would be withdrawn and not take 

effect. EPA subsequently received 

adverse comment. EPA will address the 

comment in a subsequent final action 

based upon the proposed action also 

published on August 24, 2005 (70 FR 

49525). EPA will not institute a second 

comment period on this action. 

DATES: The direct final rule is 

withdrawn as of October 19, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Notarianni, Air Planning 

Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. (404/ 

562–9031 (phone) or 

notarianni.michele@epa.gov (e-mail).)