97-14719. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; 15% Rate-of-Progress Plan and Contingency MeasuresCecil County Nonattainment Area  

  • [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: donahue.carolyn@epamail.epa.gov. 
    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
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
06/05/1997
Department:
Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:
Proposed Rule
Action:
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Document Number:
97-14719
Dates:
Comments on this proposed action must be postmarked by July 7, 1997.
Pages:
30818-30820 (3 pages)
Docket Numbers:
MD 038-3009, FRL-5835-3
PDF File:
97-14719.pdf
CFR: (1)
40 CFR 52