[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 108 (Thursday, June 5, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30818-30820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14719]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MD 038-3009; FRL-5835-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; 15% Rate-of-Progress Plan and Contingency Measures--Cecil
County Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Maryland for the Cecil County ozone
nonattainment area to meet the 15 Percent Reasonable Further Progress
Plan (RFP, or 15% plan), also known as rate-of-progress (ROP)
requirements, of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is proposing to approve
Maryland's 15% plan for Cecil County because it meets the 15% plan
requirements under the CAA, and is consistent with EPA policy and
guidance. Emission reductions realized by Maryland's 15% plan for Cecil
County are sufficient to fulfill Maryland's contingency measure
obligation for the County. Therefore, EPA is also proposing approval of
contingency measures for Cecil County, Maryland.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be postmarked by July 7,
1997.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief,
Ozone/CO & 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, Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107;
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M. Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460; 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 address above. Information may also be requested via
e-mail at the following address: [email protected].
Please note that while information may be requested via e-mail, only
written comments can be accepted for inclusion in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA, as amended in 1990, requires ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above to develop plans
to reduce area-wide volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions by 15%
from a 1990 baseline. These ``15% plans'' were to be submitted to EPA
by November 15, 1993, with the reductions to occur by November 15,
1996. The CAA also sets limitations on the creditability of certain
control measures towards the ROP requirements. Specifically, states
cannot take credit for reductions achieved by Federal Motor Vehicle
Control Program (FMVCP) measures (i.e., new car emissions standards)
promulgated prior to 1990; or for reductions resulting from regulations
promulgated prior to 1990 to lower the volatility (i.e., Reid vapor
pressure (RVP)) of gasoline. Furthermore, the CAA does not allow credit
towards RFP for post-1990 corrections to vehicle inspection and
maintenance programs (I/M) or corrections to Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) rules, as these programs were required to be
in place prior to 1990.
In addition, section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires that contingency
measures be included in the 15% plan, to be implemented if reasonable
further progress is not achieved, or if the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) is not attained by the deadlines set forth in
the CAA.
II. Maryland SIP Submittal for Cecil County
In Maryland, three nonattainment areas are subject to the CAA's 15%
ROP requirements. These are the Baltimore nonattainment area, the
Maryland portion of the Metropolitan Washington, DC nonattainment area,
and Cecil County, which is part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton
nonattainment area. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
submitted revisions to its SIP for all three nonattainment area, which
EPA received on July 12, 1995. EPA is taking action today only on
Maryland's 15% plan submittal and contingency measures for Cecil
County. The 15% plan submittals for the Maryland portion of the
Metropolitan Washington, DC nonattainment area and the Baltimore
nonattainment area will be the subjects of other rulemaking notices.
III. Analysis of SIP Revision
Table 1 presents the calculations of the required reductions for
the Cecil County nonattainment area 15% ROP plan.
Table 1.--Calculation of Required Reductions for Maryland's 15% Plan for
the Cecil County Nonattainment Area
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) 1990 Base Year Inventory..................................... 19.0
(2) Adjustments for FMVCP/RVP.................................... 2.4
(3) 1990 Adjusted Base Year Inventory [(1)-(2)].................. 16.6
(4) 15% Reduction Requirement [0.15 x (3)]....................... 2.49
(5) Expected Emissions Growth 1990-1996.......................... 0.7
(6) 3% Contingency Measures [0.03 x (3)]......................... 0.49
(7) Total Emissions Reductions Required [(4)+(5)+(6)]............ 3.68
(8) Total Reduction Claimed by Maryland from Creditable Measures. 4.72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory
The baseline from which states must determine the required
reductions for 15% planning is the 1990 VOC base year emissions
inventory. The inventory is broken down into several emissions source
categories: stationary, area, on-road mobile sources, and off-road
mobile sources. This emissions total is the basis for calculating
emissions growth and the required 15% emissions reduction from the
adjusted base year inventory. The 1990 adjusted base year inventory is
derived from the 1990 base year inventory minus FMVCP/RVP reductions,
RACT corrections and I/M corrections. Pursuant to the CAA, Maryland did
not take credit for post-1990 RACT corrections or post-1990 I/M
corrections because these programs were to be in place prior to 1990.
Maryland submitted a formal SIP revision containing their official 1990
base year emission inventory on March
[[Page 30819]]
21, 1994. EPA approved this inventory in a notice published in the
Federal Register on September 27, 1996 (61 FR 50715).
In its 15% plan for Cecil County, the State of Maryland submitted a
1990 base year inventory totaling 18.9 TPD. However, the approved 1990
base year inventory for Cecil County, Maryland, is 19.0 TPD. This
discrepancy is not critical to the rest of Maryland's 15% plan
calculations because it is not large enough to significantly change the
15% required emissions reduction calculated for the area (a difference
of 0.015 TPD). EPA believes that this discrepancy arose due to rounding
differences in Maryland's 15% plan and base year emissions inventory
calculations. EPA will continue using the approved total of 19.0 TPD as
the 1990 base year inventory for Cecil County throughout this action.
B. Growth in Emissions Between 1990 and 1996
EPA has interpreted the CAA (57 FR 13507, April 16, 1992) to
require that RFP towards attainment of the ozone standard must be
obtained after offsetting any growth expected to occur during that
period. Therefore, to meet the 15% requirement, a state must implement
measures achieving sufficient emissions reductions to offset projected
growth in emissions, in addition to a 15% reduction of VOC emissions.
Thus, an estimate of VOC emissions growth from 1990 to 1996 is
necessary for demonstrating RFP. Growth is calculated by multiplying
the 1990 base year inventory by acceptable forecasting indicators.
Growth must be determined separately for each source, or by source
category, since different source categories typically grow at different
rates. EPA's inventory preparation guidance recommends the following
indicators in order of preference: Product output, value added,
earnings, and employment. Population can also serve as a surrogate
indicator.
Maryland's 15% plan for Cecil County contains growth projections
for point, area, on-road mobile, and non-road mobile source categories.
Maryland determined the growth projection for Cecil County using the
U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) growth
factors and industrial earnings as an indicator. EPA has determined
that the growth projections for each of the categories in Cecil County
is approvable. For a detailed description of the growth methodologies
used by the State, please refer to EPA's Technical Support Document
(TSD) prepared for this action.
C. Creditable Emission Control Strategies in the 15% Plan
The specific measures adopted (either through state or federal
rules) for the Cecil County nonattainment area are addressed, in
detail, in the State's 15% plan for Cecil County. The control measures
described below are creditable towards the 15% requirements of the CAA.
EPA agrees with the emission reductions projected in the state
submittal for the following measures:
1. Seasonal Open Burning Ban
Maryland submitted amendments to its open burning regulation,
COMAR 26.11.07, on July 12, 1995. These amendments institute a ban,
during the peak ozone season, on the practice of burning for the
disposal of brush and yard waste as a method of land clearing. On
January 31, 1997, EPA's direct final approval of these revisions into
the Maryland SIP was signed.
This ban on open burning, affecting Cecil County (part of the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton severe nonattainment area), will result
in a reduction of VOC emissions. The State of Maryland claimed 4.4 tons
VOC per day (TPD) emissions reductions from the seasonal open burning
ban in Cecil County. Maryland assumed 100% rule effectiveness to attain
this emission reduction. However, the State did not submit any
documentation substantiating why the default value of 80% rule
effectiveness should not be applied to this measure.
Rule effectiveness is an estimate of how effectively a rule is
implemented, and is used as a percentage of total available reductions
from a control measure. Pursuant to EPA guidance, control measures are
subject to a rule effectiveness adjustment, unless clearly documented
reasons as to why they should not be subjected are included in the
submittal. Therefore, the State of Maryland can claim 3.52 TPD
emissions reductions from the seasonal open burning ban in Cecil County
(80% of 4.4 TPD).
2. Consumer and Commercial Products National Rule
Section 183(e) of the Act required EPA to conduct a study of VOC
emissions from consumer and commercial products and to compile a
regulatory priority list. EPA is then required to regulate those
categories that account for 80% of the consumer product emissions in
ozone nonattainment areas. Group I of EPA's regulatory schedule lists
24 categories of consumer products to be regulated by national rule,
including personal, household, and automotive products. EPA intends to
issue a final rule covering these products in the near future. EPA
policy allows states to claim up to a 20% reduction of total consumer
product emissions towards the ROP requirement. Maryland claimed a 20%
reduction or the equivalent reduction of 0.1 TPD from their 1996
projected uncontrolled consumer and commercial products emissions in
its 15% plan for Cecil County. EPA has determined that this 0.1 TPD
reduction is creditable in the 15% plan.
3. Stage I
Stage I Vapor Recovery is a measure that controls gasoline vapor
emissions at gasoline dispensing facilities that result from unloading
gasoline from a delivery vessel (tank truck) into a stationary storage
vessel (storage tank). The vapors displaced in the storage tank by the
liquid gasoline are retrieved into the tank truck and transported back
to the refinery. EPA has approved Maryland's Stage I regulation into
the Maryland SIP (60 FR 2018). From this type of control measure,
Maryland claimed 0.8 TPD emission reductions in the 15% plan for Cecil
County. EPA has determined that these 0.8 TPD are creditable toward the
15% plan.
4. Autobody Refinishing
EPA is in the process of adopting a national rule to control
emissions from coatings used in auto body refinishing operations.
These coatings are typically used by industry and small businesses,
or by vehicle owners. VOC emissions emanate from the evaporation of
solvents used in the coating process. Although there are various
avenues of VOC control in the autobody finishing process, the national
rule targets the formulation of the surface coatings. In a November 24,
1994 memo, EPA set forth policy on the creditable reductions to be
assumed from the national rule for autobody refinishing. That memo
stipulated that a 37% reduction from current emissions, and allowed for
the assumption of 100% rule effectiveness (presuming the coating
application instructions were being followed). Rule penetration is also
assumed to be 100%. Thus, a 37% emission reduction claimed by Maryland
is allowable.
Maryland claimed a 45% emission reduction from autobody refinishing
in the Cecil County 15% plan from a state autobody refinishing
regulation. However, this rule has yet to be approved into the SIP.
Therefore, only
[[Page 30820]]
a 37% reduction, or 0.14 TPD, from autobody refinishing is allowable in
the Maryland 15% plan for Cecil County.
5. Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings
Reformulation
EPA is required to promulgate, by March 1997, a national rule for
reducing emissions from architectural coatings--including interior and
exterior paints, etc. In a policy memo dated March 22, 1995, EPA
provided guidance on expected reductions and creditability from the
national architectural coatings rule (61 FR 32729). Cecil County claims
an emissions reduction of 0.2 TPD from AIM reformulation. However, EPA
cannot allow 0.2 TPD because rule effectiveness was not applied to this
control measure. Therefore, only 0.16 TPD (0.2 TPD x 80% rule
effectiveness) can be credited to Cecil County's 15% plan.
As shown above, the 15% required reductions (2.49 TPD) and the
expected emissions growth from 1990 to 1996 (0.7 TPD) for Cecil County
are realized by the 4.72 TPD total emission reductions from open
burning, stage I, consumer and commercial products, autobody
refinishing, and AIM coatings.
D. Contingency Measures
Ozone areas classified as moderate or above must include in their
submittal, under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, contingency measures to
be implemented if RFP is not achieved or if the standard is not
attained by the applicable date. The General Preamble to Title I, (57
FR 13498) states that the contingency measures should, at a minimum,
ensure that an appropriate level of emissions reduction progress
continues to be made if attainment or RFP is not achieved and
additional planning by the state is needed. Therefore, EPA interprets
the CAA to require states with moderate and above ozone nonattainment
areas to include sufficient contingency measures in the ROP plan, so
that upon implementation of such measures, additional emissions
reductions of up to 3% of the adjusted base year inventory (or a lesser
percentage that will make up the identified shortfall) would be
achieved in the year after the failure has been identified. However,
the emissions reduction in Maryland's 15% plan for Cecil County exceed
the required 15% by more than 3% of the required emissions reduction;
thus, EPA considers the contingency measures requirement adequately
addressed through the plan's total emissions reduction. Therefore,
Maryland does not need to address contingency measures for Cecil County
as a separate emissions reduction requirement. The needed emission
reduction for the Cecil County ROP plan is the sum of the required 15%
reduction, the expected emission growth from 1990 to 1996, and the 3%
contingency reduction, totaling 3.68 TPD. This emissions reduction
total can be fulfilled through the creditable control measures for
Cecil County, which achieve a 4.72 TPD emission reduction.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA has evaluated the Maryland 15% plan submittal for Cecil County
for consistency with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. The RFP
progress submittal will achieve enough reductions to meet the 15%
requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the CAA, as well as the additional
3% as contingency measures under 172(c)(9) of the CAA. EPA is proposing
full approval of Maryland's 15% plan and contingency measures for Cecil
County under section 110(k)(3) and Part D of the CAA.
Nothing in this proposed rule 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
any SIP shall be considered separately in light of specific technical,
economic, and environmental factors and in relation to relevant
statutory and regulatory requirements.
This proposed approval for the Maryland 15% plan for the Cecil
County nonattainment area has been classified as a Table 3 action for
signature by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published
in the Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as
revised by a July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and
Budget has exempted this 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 Act
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the state is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP-
approval of Maryland's 15% plan and contingency measures for Cecil
County does not impose any new requirements, EPA 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 regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. US EPA, 427 US 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
Unfunded Mandates
Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector; or to
state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
EPA has determined that the approval action proposed 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.
The Regional Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the
SIP revision pertaining to the Maryland 15% plan and contingency
measures for the Cecil County nonattainment area will be based on
whether it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) (A)-(K) and part
D of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA regulations in 40 CFR part
51.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental regulations, Reporting and recordkeeping, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: April 9, 1997.
A.R. Morris,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-14719 Filed 6-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P