[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 14 (Friday, January 22, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3465-3474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1482]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[Docket No. A98-46, FRL-6222-9]
Promulgation of Federal Implementation Plan for New Jersey; Ozone
15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the authority of section 110(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), EPA is proposing a federal implementation plan (FIP) that will
further New Jersey's progress towards attaining the ozone standard. The
intended effect of this FIP is to address the shortfall in the State's
15 Percent Rate of Progress (ROP) Plans for the New Jersey portions of
two severe ozone nonattainment areas--the New York, Northern New
Jersey, Long Island Area, and the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton
Area. EPA was required to develop a FIP because New Jersey did not meet
the condition in it's federally-approved 15 Percent ROP Plans requiring
New Jersey to implement an enhanced inspection and maintenance program
by November 15, 1997. Pursuant to a court order, EPA's final FIP must
be signed by the EPA Administrator no later than August 15, 1999.
EPA's proposed FIP relies on four already-adopted federal air
pollution control measures that will result in the required volatile
organic compound (VOC) emission reductions. Specifically, the FIP
recognizes VOC reductions resulting from the emission standards for new
nonroad spark-ignition engines, the emission standards for automobile
refinish coatings, and the emission standards for architectural
coatings. In addition, for the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton Area,
the FIP relies upon emission reductions from the already adopted
National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations. In total,
these measures will result in sufficient VOC emission reductions to
achieve the 15 Percent ROP demonstration required by the CAA. Because
these requirements are already adopted they will provide the emission
[[Page 3466]]
reductions in the most expeditious time frame.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 17, 1999. EPA has
scheduled a public hearing on the New Jersey Ozone 15 Percent Shortfall
FIP for March 3, 1999 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the EPA's proposed FIP must be received
by EPA at the address below on or before March 17, 1999. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to: Ronald Borsellino,
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
Office, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
The public hearing will be held at the following location: Rutgers
University, New Brunswick, Labor Education Center, Labor Center Way,
room 102. For directions, please contact Paul Truchan at (212) 637-
3711.
A copy of docket No. A98-46, containing material relevant to EPA's
proposed action, is available for review at: Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
Interested persons may make an appointment with Paul Truchan (212)
637-3711 to inspect the docket at EPA's New York City office on
weekdays between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.
A copy of docket No. A98-46 is also available to review at the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Air Quality
Management, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, 401 East State Street,
CN418, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.
Electronic availability: This document is also available as an
electronic file on EPA's Region 2 Web Page at http://www.epa.gov/ region02.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Truchan, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
A. Introduction--the Shortfall
B. FIP Proposal
C. Public Involvement
II. Background
A. Clean Air Act Requirements
B. Chronology of Actions Related to New Jersey's 15 Percent ROP
Plans
C. Relation to the 8-hour Average Ozone Standard
III. FIP Development Process
A. New Jersey's Efforts To Make Up the 15 Percent Shortfall
B. Federal Implementation Plan Provisions
C. FIP Selection Factors
IV. Description of the Measures Included in the Proposed FIP
A. New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines
1. Background
2. Emission Standards
3. Compliance and Recordkeeping
4. Emission Reductions
B. Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings
1. Background
2. Emission Standards
3. Compliance and Recordkeeping
4. Emission Reductions
C. Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings
1. Background
2. Emission Standards
3. Compliance and Recordkeeping
D. National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations
1. Background
2. Compliance and Recordkeeping
3. Emission Reductions
E. Summary of New Jersey's 15 Percent ROP Plan and FIP
V. Conclusion:
VI. Administrative Requirements
I. Executive Summary
A. Introduction--the Shortfall
Today's action affects two areas of New Jersey which have been
designated as nonattainment of the 1-hour national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for ozone. The measured levels of ozone in these areas
were high enough that these areas were classified as having a
``severe'' ozone problem. These nonattainment areas are the portion of
New Jersey in the New York, Northern New Jersey, Long Island ozone
nonattainment area, and the portion of New Jersey in the Philadelphia,
Wilmington, Trenton ozone nonattainment area. For the purposes of this
action, these areas will be referred to as, respectively, the Northern
New Jersey nonattainment area and the Trenton nonattainment area. These
two severe nonattainment areas involve 18 of New Jersey's 21 counties
and contain approximately 95 percent of the State's population. The
counties located within the Northern New Jersey nonattainment area are:
Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean,
Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, and Union. The counties within the Trenton
nonattainment area are: Burlington, Camden, Cumberland, Gloucester,
Mercer, and Salem.
Ground level ozone, often known as smog, is the air pollution that
blankets many urban areas during the summer. When inhaled, even at low
levels, ozone can cause temporary respiratory problems and aggravate
asthma in children, the elderly, those with respiratory disease, and
even otherwise healthy adults who are working or exercising outside on
a smoggy day. Children are exposed to ozone more often because they
tend to be out doors during summer. Long-term exposures to ozone may
lead to premature aging of the lungs and chronic respiratory illnesses.
Ozone also damages crops, rubberized materials and fabrics. A more
complete description of the health effects of ozone and EPA's 8-hour
ozone standard is available at the following EPA web site: http://
ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/naaqsfin/. State plans to meet this new standard
are not due to EPA until 2003. Today's proposal will bring the State
closer to meeting the previously established one-hour ozone standard
which remains in effect for areas such as the two New Jersey
nonattainment areas. Today's proposal will also, in turn, bring New
Jersey closer to meeting the new more stringent 8-hour standard.
Ground-level ozone is formed by the atmospheric reaction of VOCs
and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight. The primary source of
VOC emissions are: exhaust from automobiles, sport utility vehicles,
trucks and other gasoline burning engines, solvent evaporation from
paints and coatings, evaporation of petroleum products, and industrial
manufacturing and surface coating operations. While nitrogen oxides
also contribute to the formation of ozone they are not a part of
today's action, as the 15 Percent ROP requirement in the CAA applies
only to VOC emissions. There are separate CAA requirements for nitrogen
oxides.
The CAA provides a framework that the states must follow in order
to attain the ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as possible. This framework
requires, at a minimum, the early adoption of specific control measures
to achieve Reasonable Further Progress--including a 15 percent
reduction in VOC emissions between 1990 and 1996. The CAA also provides
that EPA has an obligation to develop a FIP if EPA disapproves a SIP
for failing to provide the required VOC emission reduction strategies
needed to make progress towards meeting the health-based standard.
New Jersey's federally-approved 15 Percent ROP Plans for the two
severe ozone nonattainment areas relied on the emission reductions from
several control measures including the implementation of a State
enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. When implementation
of this program was delayed, these emission reductions could not be
achieved on schedule. Therefore, EPA's conditional approval of the New
Jersey 15 Percent ROP Plans converted to a disapproval and EPA is now
obligated to develop a FIP that will make up for the VOC emission
reduction shortfall. This shortfall is 30.86 tons per day in the
Northern New Jersey nonattainment
[[Page 3467]]
area and 10.24 tons per day in the Trenton nonattainment area.
In addition, EPA is under court order, as a result of a lawsuit by
the American Lung Association of Northern Virginia, et al., to
promulgate a FIP which makes up the shortfall in the 15 Percent ROP
Plan for the Trenton nonattainment area. Under the Consent Agreement,
EPA has until January 15, 1999, to propose and August 15, 1999, to
adopt the FIP.
B. FIP Proposal
EPA's FIP proposal for the Northern New Jersey and Trenton
nonattainment areas relies on the emission reductions from three EPA-
promulgated national air pollution control measures: the emission
standards for new nonroad spark-ignition engines, the emission
standards for automobile refinish coatings, and the emission standards
for architectural coatings. In addition to the above measures, in the
Trenton nonattainment area EPA's proposed FIP also includes emission
reductions from the already-adopted national emission standard for
benzene waste operations. These measures were selected because they are
already adopted and will therefore, most expeditiously result in
emission reductions.
The CAA and the Consent Agreement require EPA to develop a FIP to
make up for shortfalls in New Jersey's 15 Percent ROP Plans. Another
consequence of EPA's disapproval of the New Jersey 15 Percent ROP Plans
is that a mandatory sanction process was started. The CAA provides for
two mandatory sanctions: first, 18 months after notification, a
requirement to offset the increased emissions from new or modified
major sources of air pollution at a rate of two tons of reduction for
every one ton of increased emissions; and second, 24 months after
notification, restrictions on the receipt of federal highway funds.
This sanctions process is only terminated by EPA approval of a new 15
Percent ROP SIP revision, not by promulgation of this FIP.
EPA is working closely with New Jersey so that the State can
develop an approvable 15 Percent ROP Plan which will replace EPA's FIP
and avoid these sanctions.
C. Public Involvement
EPA is today announcing a public hearing on this FIP proposal. The
public comment period will begin upon publication of the FIP proposal
and will remain open for 30 days following the public hearing. EPA
encourages everyone who has an interest in this proposal to comment
upon it. EPA will consider all comments received during the public
comment period in preparing the final FIP.
II. Background
A. Clean Air Act Requirements
Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA requires each ozone nonattainment area
with a classification of moderate or above to develop a plan to reduce
area-wide VOC emissions by 15 percent from a 1990 adjusted baseline,
known as a 15 Percent ROP Plan. These plans were to be submitted by
November 15, 1993.
B. Chronology of Actions Related to New Jersey's 15 Percent ROP Plans
New Jersey's original submittal was determined to be incomplete on
February 2, 1994, which started a sanction process and a federal
obligation to promulgate a FIP within 24 months, unless New Jersey
satisfactorily fulfills the CAA requirements. The original submittal
was determined to be incomplete because it relied on emission
reductions from an enhanced I/M program that New Jersey had not yet
adopted. On July 10, 1995, New Jersey submitted a SIP revision
containing an adopted enhanced I/M program that EPA subsequently
determined to be complete on August 1, 1995. This stopped the sanction
process, but EPA's FIP obligation would remain until EPA took final
action to approve the 15 Percent ROP Plan. EPA did not act further on
the State's submittals because subsequent to the July 10, 1995 enhanced
I/M submittal the State decided to revise the enhanced I/M program to
make use of the flexibility that Congress provided to states in the
National Highway System Designation Act, which was enacted in November
1995.
EPA's FIP obligation continued, and, as a result of a lawsuit by
the American Lung Association of Northern Virgina, et al., relating to
the Trenton nonattainment area, EPA entered into a consent agreement
that contained a schedule for the promulgation of a FIP if New Jersey
failed to submit a 15 Percent ROP SIP, or if EPA did not approve it, or
if New Jersey failed to implement any conditions of the approved SIP.
This consent agreement only applies to the Trenton nonattainment area.
On April 30, 1997 (62 FR 23410), EPA proposed conditional interim
approval of New Jersey's 15 Percent ROP Plans and, on June 30, 1997 (62
FR 35100), EPA gave final conditional interim approval to the 15
Percent ROP Plans, as well as approving several other CAA SIP
requirements. In this notice EPA found that the control measures
included in the plans would achieve 15 Percent ROP by November 15,
1999, which is as soon as practicable. The conditions placed on the 15
Percent ROP Plan approval related only to the enhanced I/M program. No
conditions regarding any of the other measures were included in EPA's
approval. As a result of a delay in the start up of the conditionally
approved enhanced I/M program, which delayed full implementation by
more than one year, EPA made a finding that the State failed to
implement the enhanced I/M program and disapproved New Jersey's 15
Percent ROP Plans on December 12, 1997.
EPA's FIP obligation with respect to the 15 Percent ROP Plans is
limited to adopting control measures which will eliminate the resulting
emission reduction shortfall caused by the delay in the enhanced I/M
program since the other portions of New Jersey's 15 Percent ROP plan
are still approved as part of New Jersey's SIP and are still producing
VOC emission reductions that benefit the environment. Under the Consent
Agreement, EPA has until January 15, 1999 to propose the FIP and has
until August 15, 1999 to adopt a FIP.
C. Relation to the 8-hour Average Ozone Standard
In July 1997, EPA adopted a new, more protective 8-hour ozone
standard. However, for the purposes of making progress toward this new
eight-hour ozone standard, the requirements for the old one-hour
standard remain in effect until areas attain the one-hour standard. The
requirement for a 15 Percent ROP Plan in the Northern New Jersey and
the Trenton nonattainment areas continues since neither location has
yet attained the one-hour ozone standard. Today's action deals only
with the implementation of measures to make progress towards attainment
of the one-hour ozone standard.
III. FIP Development Process
A. New Jersey's Efforts To Make Up the 15 Percent Shortfall
New Jersey is now in the process of revising its 15 Percent ROP
Plans to make up for the shortfall created by the delay in implementing
its enhanced I/M program. As part of this effort, New Jersey identified
its landfill control program which was State promulgated and SIP-
approved but was not included in its original 15 Percent ROP Plans. In
addition, New Jersey used more accurate landfill emission estimating
techniques which lowered the 1990
[[Page 3468]]
emissions from this category. The revised landfill emissions result in
lower 1990 baseline emissions and, therefore, lower the amount of
reductions needed to show 15 Percent ROP. In a letter dated November 9,
1998, New Jersey provided revised landfill information to be used in
the revised 15 Percent ROP Plans. EPA considers this information to be
the latest and most accurate assessment of the base year emissions.
This correction reduces the shortfall which the FIP needs to account
for from 31.41 to 30.86 tons per day in the Northern New Jersey
nonattainment area and from 10.55 to 10.24 tons per day in the Trenton
nonattainment area. With the exception of the enhanced inspection and
maintenance program, all control programs have been adopted,
implemented, and approved by EPA in the SIP. The table in section
IV.E., provides a summary of New Jersey's previously conditionally
approved 15 Percent ROP Plan and the resulting shortfall after
consideration of the revised landfill data.
Therefore, EPA is basing its FIP on the need to make up for an
emission reduction shortfall of 30.86 tons per day in the Northern New
Jersey nonattainment area and 10.24 tons per day in the Trenton
nonattainment area by November 15, 1999, the date which EPA previously
found to be as soon as possible in New Jersey.
B. Federal Implementation Plan Provisions
Section 110(c) of the CAA provides that:
(1) The Administrator shall promulgate a federal implementation
plan at any time within 2 years after the Administrator--
(A) Finds that the state has failed to make a required submission
or finds that the plan or plan revision submitted by the state does not
satisfy the minimum criteria established under section
110(k)(1)(A),1 or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 110(k)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to
promulgate minimum criteria that any plan submission must meet
before EPA is required to act on the submission. These completeness
criteria are set forth at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Disapproves a State Implementation Plan submission in whole or
in part, unless the state corrects the deficiency, and the
Administrator approves the plan or plan revision, before the
Administrator promulgates such federal implementation plan.
EPA has wide-ranging authority under section 110(c) to fill in gaps
left by a state failure. EPA's authority to prescribe FIP measures is
of three types. First, EPA may promulgate any measure for which it has
the authority under CAA provisions. Second, EPA may invoke section
110(c)'s general FIP authority and act to cure a planning inadequacy in
any way not clearly prohibited by statute. Third, under section 110(c),
the courts have held that EPA may exercise all authority that the state
may exercise under the Act. For a more detailed discussion of these
authorities and restrictions on EPA's FIP authorities, see 59 FR 23262,
23290-23292 (May 5, 1994).
C. FIP Selection Factors
In selecting proposed control measures to remedy the shortfall, EPA
was guided by the following factors in evaluating potential control
measures:
1. Existing SIP
EPA removed from further consideration any measure which was
already approved as part of the SIP and where the State has credited
that measure towards meeting rate of progress requirements.
2. Applicability to New Jersey
Before a measure can be considered as a potential FIP control
measure, EPA must first determine if the measure would have any
inherent potential to reduce VOC emissions in the affected
nonattainment areas.
3. Legal Authority
EPA must have the legal authority under the CAA to promulgate,
implement, and enforce a measure, and must not be preempted from
promulgating, implementing, or enforcing it by other federal statutes,
regulations, or court orders before it considers a measure reasonably
available for implementation in a FIP. EPA's FIP authority under CAA
section 110(c) is broad (see section II.A.3. above); however, the
Agency is constrained in specific instances by the CAA itself. See
e.g., CAA section 110(a)(5)(A)(i) (prohibition on indirect source
review programs) and section 110(c)(2)(B) (prohibition on parking
surcharges).
EPA's authority to promulgate measures in a FIP that require a
state to enact legislation or expend state funds is limited. EPA may
require a state to enact legislation or expend its funds if the FIP
measures affect the pollution-creating activities of the State itself,
but may not do so if the effect is to govern the pollution-creating
activities of others. For example, EPA could not require a state to
regulate buses within the state. EPA could, however, require a state to
retrofit state-owned buses to reduce emissions from those buses as part
of an EPA strategy to regulate buses in general. For a detailed
discussion of this issue, see 52 FR 23263, 23291-23292 (February 5,
1994) (proposed ozone and carbon monoxide FIP for the South Coast Air
Basin).
4. Method of Implementation
EPA considered the method of implementing the measure in
determining whether a measure was available to EPA for promulgation
under the FIP, i.e., (1) by rule requiring the owner/operator of the
source to implement the control, (2) by direct action by EPA, or (3) by
providing additional funding to the state or local agency to implement
the measure.
5. Technological Feasibility
As the term is proposed to be used here, technological feasibility
means that the control measure is currently available and being
implemented elsewhere and that the measure can achieve VOC emission
reductions.
6. Cost of Implementation
In considering the cost of implementing a measure in an area, the
General Preamble for EPA action on SIPs under the 1990 amendments to
the CAA (57 FR 13541) suggests that in case of public sector sources
and control measures, the cost evaluation should consider the impact of
the reasonableness of the measures on the governmental entity that must
bear the responsibility for their implementation.
In promulgating a FIP, EPA is the primary implementing entity. As
such, EPA must evaluate the reasonableness of potential control
measures based on its financial and resource capabilities. The Agency
notes that its duty to promulgate and implement FIPs is in addition to,
rather than a replacement of, its other duties under the Clean Air Act.
As such, where implementing a potential FIP measure would require the
Agency to expend substantial efforts to acquire needed resources,
including financial resources, EPA should take such factors into
consideration in determining whether the measure is practicable and,
thus, reasonable to implement.
IV. Description of the Measures Included in the Proposed FIP
The following control measures are being proposed to meet the
shortfall in New Jersey's 15 Percent ROP Plans. In EPA's assessment,
these measures will eliminate the shortfall in the most expeditious
manner, with the least inconvenience to the public, and with
[[Page 3469]]
the most effective use of available federal resources.
A. New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines
1. Background
Prior to 1990, EPA's regulatory programs for motor vehicles and
engines dealt only with on-road vehicles. In the CAA as amended in
1990, section 213(a)(1) directed EPA to study the contributions to air
quality from nonroad engines and vehicles. Section 213(a)(2) of the CAA
directed the Administrator to determine whether the emissions from
nonroad sources are significant contributors to ozone or carbon
monoxide in more than one nonattainment area and, if so, directed the
Administrator to promulgate regulations for nonroad engines. EPA
determined that there are substantial summertime VOC emissions from
nonroad sources in many nonattainment areas.
On May 16, 1994, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for
small nonroad engines (59 FR 25399). This Federal Register notice,
``Control of Air Pollution; Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-
Ignition Engines at or Below 19 Kilowatts,'' proposed emission
standards that are expected to result in a 32 percent reduction in VOC
emissions and a 14 percent reduction in carbon monoxide emissions
nationally by the year 2020 when complete fleet turnover is projected.
In a July 3, 1995 Federal Register (60 FR 34581), EPA promulgated a
first phase of the final regulations to control emissions from new
nonroad spark-ignition engines. This regulation is contained in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, ``Part 90--Control of
Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines.'' A second phase will be
adopted in the future. The FIP only relies on the emission reductions
from this first fully promulgated phase. The reader is referred to
these proposed and final Federal Register notices for greater detail.
2. Emission Standards
This regulation is applicable to nonroad spark-ignition engines and
vehicles that have a gross power output at or below 19 kilowatts and is
effective for the 1997 model year and beyond. These engines are used
principally in lawn and garden equipment and include such equipment as
lawn mowers, leaf blowers, trimmers, chainsaws, and generators. Section
90.1(b) of 40 CFR Part 90 specifies those engine applications which are
exempt from these emission standards.
Section 90.103 specifies the exhaust emission standards. Such
standards are based on both engine displacement and whether the
equipment is handheld. There are emission standards for hydrocarbons
(VOCs), carbon monoxides, and oxides of nitrogen.
3. Compliance and Recordkeeping
EPA has established certification procedures which engine
manufacturers must comply with in order to obtain a ``Certificate of
Conformity.'' These procedures include engine testing, data reporting,
record keeping, and labeling.
The inclusion of this control measure in the New Jersey FIP does
not require any additional effort or burden to the manufacturers. There
will be no separate testing, record keeping, or reporting requirements
under the New Jersey FIP. Compliance with the national rule (40 CFR
Part 90) is sufficient to insure compliance and emission reductions in
New Jersey or any other state.
4. Emission Reductions
EPA has determined that the new nonroad standards will reduce VOC
emissions by 13.1 percent in 1997, 19.5 percent in 1998, and 23.9
percent in 1999 nationally. Applying these percentages to New Jersey's
specific engine population, the resulting VOC emission reductions that
will be achieved in 1999 will be 16.19 tons per day in the Northern New
Jersey nonattainment area and 5.71 tons per day in the Trenton
nonattainment area. EPA's technical analysis supporting these numbers
is contained in the docket for this rulemaking.
B. Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings
1. Background
In the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, section 183(e) directs EPA
to study the emissions of VOCs into the ambient air from consumer and
commercial products and determine their potential contribution to ozone
levels. In this study EPA was to list the categories of consumer or
commercial products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC
emissions from these products in ozone nonattainment areas and develop
a schedule for regulating these categories over the next eight years.
Based on this study, EPA concluded that VOC emissions from
automobile refinish coatings have the potential to contribute to ozone
levels that violate the NAAQS for ozone. On April 30, 1996 (61 FR
19005), EPA proposed the ``National Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings (Autobody
Refinishing).'' A supplemental proposal was published on December 30,
1997 (62 FR 67784). On September 11, 1998 (63 FR 48806), EPA
promulgated final regulations at 40 CFR Part 59, Subpart B--``National
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish
Coatings'' (Subpart B).
2. Emission Standards
The promulgated rule is applicable to all entities nationally that
manufacture or import automobile refinish coating components or
complete refinish coatings. Regulated automobile refinish coatings are
pretreatment wash primers, primers/primer surfacers, primer sealers,
single/two-stage topcoats, topcoats of more than two stages, multi-
colored top coats, and specialty coatings. The VOC content standards
are dependent on the coating category and specify limitations in grams
of VOC per liter of coating.
3. Compliance and Recordkeeping
Automobile refinish coatings and coating components manufactured on
or after January 11, 1999 must be in compliance with 40 CFR Part 59,
Subpart B. Containers must be labeled with the date of manufacture or a
code for the date. An initial report must be filed with EPA by January
11, 1999 or within 180 days after becoming subject to the rule. For
purposes of determining compliance, the VOC content of each coating or
component may be determined using EPA's Reference Method 24--
``Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density,
Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface Coatings,'' found in 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A.
It should be noted that the inclusion of this control measure in
the New Jersey FIP does not require any additional effort or burden to
the manufacturers or importers of automobile refinishing components or
coatings. There will be no separate testing, record keeping or
reporting requirements. Compliance with the national rule will be
sufficient to insure compliance and emissions reductions in New Jersey
or any other state.
4. Emission Reductions
EPA has determined that the automobile refinish coating standards
will result in VOC emission reductions in 1999 of 13.23 tons per day in
the Northern New Jersey nonattainment area and 3.44 tons per day in the
Trenton nonattainment area using New Jersey specific data on the
automobile
[[Page 3470]]
refinishing industry. EPA's technical analysis supporting these numbers
is contained in the docket for this rulemaking.
C. Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings
1. Background
EPA developed national regulations for architectural coatings as
part of a larger requirement to control VOC emissions from certain
categories of consumer and commercial products. Based on this study,
EPA concluded that VOC emissions from architectural coatings have the
potential to contribute to ozone levels that violate the NAAQS for
ozone.
EPA proposed the ``National Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Standards for Architectural Coatings'' (Architectural rule) on June 25,
1996 (61 FR 32729) and September 3, 1996 (61 FR 46410), and the comment
period was further extended on October 8, 1996 (61 FR 52735). On
September 11, 1998 (63 FR 48848), EPA promulgated final regulations at
40 CFR Part 59, Subpart D--``National Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Standards For Architectural Coatings.'' The reader is referred
to these Federal Register notices for greater detail.
New Jersey developed its own architectural coatings regulation,
Subchapter 23 ``Prevention of Air Pollution From Architectural Coatings
and Consumer Products,'' which was originally adopted in 1989 and
subsequently revised. The regulation took effect in January 1990 for
Group 1 products and March 1990 for Group 2 products. The regulation
allowed coatings manufactured before 1990 to be sold until 1993.
Because of the uncertainty in determining when the emission reductions
occurred, New Jersey treated this source category as uncontrolled in
the 1990 base year emission inventory. By 1999, Subchapter 23 would
have achieved emission reductions of as much as 4.9 tons per day in
Northern New Jersey nonattainment area and 0.9 tons per day in the
Trenton nonattainment area. However, EPA is not proposing to take
credit for the reductions associated with New Jersey's regulation at
this time because EPA was unable to verify the quantity of VOC emission
reductions which occurred after 1990 and would be creditable towards
the 15 Percent ROP Plan. Rather, EPA is taking credit only for the
emission reductions associated with those categories of coatings where
EPA's national rule goes beyond New Jersey's rule. This decision
provides a cushion in the emission reduction estimates that addresses
any uncertainty in EPA's proposed FIP.
2. Emission Standards
The national architectural coatings rule is applicable to all
entities that manufacture or import for sale or distribution in the
United States architectural coatings. Architectural coatings include,
but are not limited to, such coatings as: primers and sealers, flat and
nonflat paints, stains, enamels, and wood preservatives. A complete
list of coatings subject to this rule is contained in 40 CFR part 59,
subpart D, Table 1. The VOC content standards are dependent on the
coating category and specify limitations expressed as grams of VOC per
liter of coating. The rule contains a tonnage exemption for exempting
limited quantities of coatings. EPA also included an exceedance fee
provision in the national rule. Under this provision, manufacturers or
importers would have the option of paying a fee, based on the amount
that VOC content levels are exceeded, instead of actually achieving the
VOC content limitations. The fee is $0.0028 per gram or $2,500 per ton.
EPA believes this will provide an option where the cost of
reformulating low volume specialty coatings is high, while still
providing an incentive to reformulate. EPA took this option into
consideration in calculating the emission reduction potential of this
rule as it would be used in the FIP.
3. Compliance and Recordkeeping
Architectural coatings manufactured on or after September 11, 1999
for sale or distribution in the United States must meet the VOC content
limitations of 40 CFR part 59, table 1 (the compliance date for
coatings subject to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act is May 10, 2000). Containers must be labeled with the date of
manufacture or a code for the date and the VOC content in the coating.
An initial report must be filed with EPA no later than September 13,
1999 or within 180 days after becoming subject to the rule.
Manufacturers must maintain records for a period of three years. For
purposes of determining compliance, the VOC content of each coating or
component may be determined using EPA's Reference Method 24--
``Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density,
Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface Coatings,'' found in 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A (or an alternate method approved by EPA),
formulation data, or other appropriate means. In the event of a
discrepancy, however, the results from Method 24 (or the approved
alternative method) govern.
It should be noted that the inclusion of this control measure in
the New Jersey FIP does not require any additional effort or burden to
the manufacturers or importers of architectural coatings. There will be
no separate testing, recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
Compliance with the national rule will be sufficient to ensure emission
reductions and compliance in New Jersey or any other state.
4. Emission Reductions
EPA calculated the additional benefit from applying the national
architectural coating rule, which has more stringent emission limits
than New Jersey's current rule for some categories. The national rule
will result in additional VOC emission reductions of 2.31 tons per day
in the Northern New Jersey nonattainment area and 0.89 tons per day in
the Trenton nonattainment area using New Jersey specific population
data. EPA's technical analysis supporting these numbers is contained in
the docket for this rulemaking.
D. National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations
1. Background
On March 7, 1990 (55 FR 8292), the EPA promulgated the national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS) for benzene
emissions from benzene waste operations, 40 CFR part 61, Subpart FF
(the rule). EPA initially issued a stay of effectiveness for this rule
on March 5, 1992. EPA published a final rule on January 7, 1993 (58 FR
3072) that clarified the provisions and lifted the stay. The final
benzene waste operations rule became effective on January 7, 1993.
2. Emission Standards
The rule is applicable to owners or operators of chemical
manufacturing plants, manufacturing plants, coke by-product recovery
plants, and petroleum refineries nationally and includes facilities
with waste management units that treat, store or dispose of waste
containing benzene. The final amendments clarify points on compliance
that give owners and operators increased flexibility in meeting the
requirements of the rule while meeting the NESHAPS goals for risk
protection.
The rule requires control of benzene emissions from waste that is
placed in storage tanks; surface impoundments; containers; individual
drain systems; oil-water separators; treatment
[[Page 3471]]
processes; and closed vent systems. (See 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF and
58 FR 3071 for more details on these regulations.) For this 15 Percent
ROP FIP action, EPA is only claiming credit for wastewater treatment
processes at one facility covered by this rule. While the rule has
resulted in real additional emission reductions, these emission
reductions are not included as part of EPA's emission reduction
calculations because they are not needed to fulfill the shortfall in
the New Jersey 15 Percent ROP Plan.
Owners and operators of wastewater streams meeting the
applicability requirements in sections 61.340 and 61.342 are required
to comply with the following wastewater stream and process vent control
requirements:
Such operators must install and operate a treatment process that
removes benzene from the wastewater stream either to a level less than
10 parts per million by weight (ppmw) on a flow weighted annual average
basis; or by at least 99 percent on a mass basis; or, by incinerating
the waste in a combustion unit that achieves a destruction efficiency
of at least 99 percent.
3. Compliance and Recordkeeping
Owners and operators subject to Subpart FF Sections 61.340 and
61.342 were required to comply with the control requirements outlined
in sections 61.348 and 61.349 by April 7, 1993. Provisions under these
sections require the owner or operator to report and maintain records
which both identify each waste stream at a facility for streams
controlled and uncontrolled for benzene emissions and include emission
test results, emission measurements, annual waste quantity and other
documentation related to wastewater processes. Records must be kept for
at least 2 years from the date the information is recorded.
4. Emission Reductions
As mentioned earlier, Subpart FF requires control of benzene
emissions from waste placed in storage tanks, surface impoundments,
containers, individual drain systems, oil-water separators, treatment
processes, and closed vent systems. However, EPA is only crediting
emission reductions from the wastewater treatment processes at one of
several petroleum refineries in the Trenton nonattainment area although
additional reductions could be documented if needed to meet the
shortfall. Complying with these provisions has resulted in VOC emission
reductions of 2.37 tons per day in the New Jersey portion of the
Trenton nonattainment area. EPA's technical analysis supporting these
numbers is contained in the docket for this rulemaking.
E. Summary of New Jersey's 15 Percent ROP Plan and FIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern New
Jersey NAA Trenton NAA
(tons/day) (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Percent ROP Plan Required Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally required reductions.......... 129.82 37.18
Changes to required reductions due
to lower landfill emissions in base
year inventory..................... -1.09 -0.49
New required reductions................. 128.73 36.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions from New Jersey Control Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally approved New Jersey control
measure reductions..................... 130.82 38.28
Benefit from landfill controls...... 0.13 0.08
Removal of enhanced I/M reductions.. -33.08 -11.91
Currently achieved reductions........... 97.87 26.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortfall Calculations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New required reductions................. 128.73 36.69
Currently achieved reductions........... 97.87 26.45
SIP shortfall........................... 30.86 10.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed FIP Control Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines...... 16.19 5.71
Automobile Refinish Coatings............ 13.23 3.44
Architectural Coatings.................. 2.31 0.89
Benzene Waste NESHAPS................... .............. 2.37
Total FIP Measures.............. 31.73 12.41
-------------------------------
Excess Reductions............... 0.87 2.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional emissions reductions have been achieved from New
Jersey's architectural coatings regulation and the national emission
standard for benzene waste operations, but have not been specifically
enumerated in this notice since sufficient reductions have already been
identified to achieve the 15 Percent ROP requirement.
V. Conclusion
EPA's proposed FIP addresses shortfalls in New Jersey's 15 Percent
ROP Plans using measures with real air pollution reductions that are
either already fully implemented or are fully adopted and in the
process of being achieved. These measures will continue New Jersey's
progress toward meeting the federal air quality one-hour ozone standard
and will result in cleaner, healthier air for all New Jersey residents.
Specifically, EPA is proposing a FIP for New Jersey to address the
shortfall in the 15 Percent ROP Plans for the two severe ozone
nonattainment areas--the Northern New Jersey area and the Trenton area.
EPA'S FIP relies on
[[Page 3472]]
emission reductions from three EPA adopted control measures for the
Northern New Jersey and Trenton nonattainment areas, emission standards
for new nonroad spark-ignition engines, emission standards for
automobile refinish coatings, emission standards for architectural
coatings, and one additional EPA promulgated control measure for the
Trenton nonattainment area, the national emission standard for benzene
waste water operations at refineries. When added to those control
measures already included in New Jersey's 15 Percent ROP Plans, these
measures will result in sufficient VOC emission reductions to achieve
the rate of progress required by the CAA.
VI. Administrative Requirements
In order to meet the requirement of section 182(b)(1) of the Act,
the proposed FIP for New Jersey relies on the VOC emission reductions
which will result from the implementation of four national control
programs, each of which has already been adopted by EPA. The control
measures are:
Control of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-ignition Engines, 40 CFR
Part 90--adopted, July 3, 1995 (60 FR 34581);
National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Automobile Refinish Coatings, 40 CFR Part 59--adopted, September 11,
1998 (63 FR 48806);
National Volatile Organic Compounds Emission Standards for
Architectural Coatings, 40 CFR Part 59--adopted, September 11, 1998
(63 FR 48848), and
National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations, 40 CFR
Part 61--adopted January 7, 1993 (58 FR 3072).
With these four control measures, the New Jersey FIP will be able to
make up the emission reduction shortfall in the disapproved New Jersey
15 Percent ROP Plans without imposing any new regulatory burdens, since
these regulations have already been adopted and are currently
applicable nationally. These measures will expeditiously achieve the
reductions with the least disruption and cost to the general public
without the need for developing, proposing and adopting additional
individual regulations for other source categories.
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of Executive Order
12866 to prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). The Executive
Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may (1) have an annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the executive order.
Since this FIP rulemaking will not add to or change any of the
requirements of the previously promulgated rules, including record
keeping or reporting, and will not result in any additional costs, this
FIP rulemaking is not ``significant'' under Executive Order 12866 and
it is therefore not subject to the requirements of the Executive Order.
Due to potential novel policy issues this action is being sent to OMB
for review.
B. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), applies to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is economically
significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) for which
the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.
Since the FIP is not adding any additional economic burden, and
since no new requirements are being imposed, this FIP is not
economically significant under Executive Order 12866. The FIP also does
not impose any new requirements that address any risk which may have a
disproportional effect on children, and, as a result Executive Order
13045 is not applicable.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. It does not create a mandate
on tribal governments, nor imposes any enforceable duties on
[[Page 3473]]
these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), requires the EPA to give special consideration to the
effect of Federal regulations on small entities and to consider
regulatory options that might mitigate any such impacts. The EPA is
required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis, including
consideration of regulatory options for reducing any significant
impacts, unless the Agency determines that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of analyzing whether the proposed FIP will have
``a significant economic impact,'' EPA assumes that sources subject to
the previously adopted rules are complying with them. The appropriate
inquiry then is whether the terms of EPA's proposed FIP would impose a
significant economic impact beyond that already imposed by the terms of
the existing rules. The proposed FIP does not change the nature of the
already applicable rule requirements in any way. There should,
therefore, be no additional burden on regulated sources because they
are already legally required to comply with the relevant federal rules.
When EPA originally promulgated the four federal measures it is relying
on in this FIP, EPA fully complied with the applicable provisions of
the RFA and SBREFA with respect to small entities. Because today's
action neither proposes any additional specific regulatory
requirements, nor obligates EPA to propose requirements necessarily
applicable to small entities, it will not, by itself have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For these reasons, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), EPA certifies that
today's proposed FIP will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities within the meaning of those terms
for RFA purposes.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995,
the 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 the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one
year. Under section 205, the EPA must select the most cost-effective
and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule and is consistent within statutory requirements. Section 203
requires the EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any
small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the
rule.
Since this FIP rulemaking will not add to or change any of the
requirements, including record keeping or reporting and will not result
in any additional costs, it will not result in expenditures by state,
local, and tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or
more in any one year. Thus, this FIP is not subject to the requirements
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (the NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA requires the
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when the EPA
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
Since this FIP does not create any new technical standards, no
analysis under the NTTAA is required. It should be noted, however, that
EPA performed an analysis under the NTTAA when it promulgated the final
Architectural Coatings and Automobile Refinish rules which were subject
to the NTTAA when promulgated. (See 63 FR 48876 and 63 FR 48814.) EPA
determined that the methods proposed by EPA at that time were more
appropriate than any of the analyzed alternatives.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
The individual control measures that make up this FIP have
information collection requirements which were submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) when the underlying measures were
published. All Paperwork Reduction Act requirements were complied with
at that time. There are no additional information collection
requirements in this proposed FIP and therefore, submittal of this
action to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
is not required.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: January 15, 1999
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 52, chapter I,
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart FF--New Jersey
2. Subpart FF is proposed to be amended by adding new section
52.1585 to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1585 Ozone 15 Percent ROP Federal Implementation Plan
(a) The volatile organic compound emission reductions from the
following control measures are used towards meeting the rate of
progress requirements of the 15 percent plans.
(1) New York, Northern New Jersey, Long Island nonattainment area:
(i) Title 40, ``Part 90--Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-
Ignition Engines,''
(ii) Title 40, Part 59, Subpart B--``National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinishing Coatings,''
(iii) Title 40, Part 59, Subpart D--``National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards For Architectural Coatings,'' and
(2) Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton nonattainment area: Title 40,
``Part 90--Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines,''
(i) Title 40, Part 59, Subpart B--``National Volatile Organic
Compound
[[Page 3474]]
Emission Standards for Automobile Refinishing Coatings,''
(ii) Title 40, Part 59, Subpart D--``National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards For Architectural Coatings,'' and
(iii) Title 40, Part 61, Subpart FF--``National Emission Standard
for Benzene Waste Operations.''
(b) Pursuant to the federal planning authority in section 110(c) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator finds that the applicable
implementation plans for the New Jersey portions of the New York,
Northern New Jersey, Long Island nonattainment area, and the
Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton nonattainment area demonstrate the 15
percent VOC rate of progress required under section 182(b)(1)(A)(1) of
the CAA.
[FR Doc. 99-1482 Filed 1-21-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
