Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Environmental Protection Agency

CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 52

DOCUMENT ID: [Region 2 Docket No. NY61-259, FRL-7528-5]

NOTICE: PROPOSED RULES

ACTION: Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States:

DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York State Implementation Plan Revision

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2003.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the New York State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone concerning the control of volatile organic compounds. The SIP revision consists of amendments to New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, Part 228, ``Surface Coating Processes.'' This SIP revision consists of a control measure needed to meet the shortfall emissions reduction identified by EPA in New York's 1hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP. The intended effect of this action is to approve a control strategy required by New York's SIP which will result in emission reductions that will help achieve attainment of the national ambient air quality standard for ozone.

SUMMARY: New York,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

I. What Is Required by the Clean Air Act and How Does It Apply to New York?

Section 182 of the Clean Air Act (Act) specifies the required State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions and requirements for areas classified as nonattainment for ozone and when these submissions and requirements are to be submitted to EPA by the states. The specific requirements vary depending upon the severity of the ozone problem. The New YorkNorthern New JerseyLong Island area is classified as a severe ozone nonattainment area. Under section 182, severe ozone nonattainment areas were required to submit demonstrations of how they would attain the 1hour standard. On December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70364), EPA proposed approval of New York's 1hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP for the New YorkNorthern New JerseyLong Island nonattainment area. In that rulemaking, EPA identified an emission reduction shortfall associated with New York's 1hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP, and required New York to address the shortfall. In a related matter, the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) developed six model rules which provided control measures for a number of source categories and estimated emission reduction benefits from implementing these model rules. These model rules were designed for use by states in developing their own regulations to achieve additional emission reductions to close emission shortfalls.

On February 4, 2002 (67 FR 5170), EPA approved New York's 1hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP. This approval included an enforceable commitment submitted by New York to adopt additional control measures to close the shortfall identified by EPA for attainment of the 1hour ozone standard.

II. What Was Included in New York's Submittal?

On April 30, 2003, Carl Johnson, Deputy Commissioner, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), submitted to EPA a revision to the SIP which included stateproposed revisions to NYCRR, Part 228, ``Surface Coating Processes.'' The proposed revisions to Part 228 will provide volatile organic compound (VOC) emission reductions to address, in part, the shortfall identified by EPA. New York used the OTC model rule as a guideline to develop Part 228. A. What Do the Revisions to Part 228, ``Surface Coating Processes'' Consist Of?

The majority of the proposed revisions to part 228 pertain to mobile equipment repair and refinishing (MERR) requirements, including VOC content limits for several MERR coating lines. The proposed revisions to part 228 establish that, beginning January 1, 2005, a person may not apply to mobile equipment or mobile equipment components any automotive pretreatment primer, automotive primersurfacer, automotive primersealer, automotive topcoat or automotive specialty coatings that contain VOCs in excess of the VOC
[[Page 41988]]

content limits specified by New York for those products.

In addition, the proposed revisions to part 228 establish that, beginning January 1, 2001, a person at a facility subject to the MERR provisions of Part 228 must use one or more of the following application techniques to apply MERR or colormatching coatings: flow/ curtain coating; dip coating; cottontipped swab application; electro deposition coating; highvolume, lowpressure spraying; electrostatic spray; airless spray; and other coating application methods approved by the NYSDEC which can achieve emission reductions equivalent to high volume, lowpressure spray or electrostatic spray application methods.

The proposed revisions to part 228 also include clarifications to definitions; permit requirements; exemptions; VOC emission control requirements; test methods, including capture efficiency test protocols and test methods; equipment cleaning specifications; and recordkeeping requirements.

III. What Is EPA's Conclusion?

EPA has evaluated New York's submittal for consistency with the Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. EPA has determined that the proposed revisions made to part 228, entitled, ``Surface Coating Processes'' meet the SIP revision requirements of the Act.

In addition, the proposed revisions to part 228, ``Surface Coating Processes'' are being processed under a procedure called parallel processing, whereby EPA proposes rulemaking action concurrent with the state's procedures for amending its regulations. If the proposed revisions to part 228 are substantially different than those identified in this document, EPA will evaluate those changes and may publish another notice of proposed rulemaking. If no substantial changes are made to part 228 as cited in this document, EPA will publish a final rulemaking on the revisions. The final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revision has been adopted by New York and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.

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 proposed 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 1044).

This proposed 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 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 Act. This proposed 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 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 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 proposed 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, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 74017671q.

Dated: July 1, 2003.
Jane M. Kenny,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 0318003 Filed 71503; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 656050P

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Kirk J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 100071866, (212) 6373381 or Wieber.Kirk@epa.gov.