[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36320-36326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17546]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[PA 04-9-4028; FRL-5535-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Disapproval of 15 Percent Reasonable-Further-Progress
Plan for the Philadelphia Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (for the
Philadelphia ozone nonattainment area) to meet the 15 percent
reasonable further progress (RFP, or 15% plan), also known as rate-of-
progress (ROP) requirements of the Clean Air Act. EPA is proposing
disapproval because the 15 percent plan submitted by Pennsylvania for
the Philadelphia area assumes credit towards ROP for numerous control
strategies which are either not fully adopted, are not creditable
towards ROP under the Clean Air Act, or have not been adequately
quantified. EPA cannot approve these reductions towards the 15% plan,
thus causing a ``shortfall'' towards Pennsylvania's RFP demonstration.
Therefore, the Commonwealth has not demonstrated sufficient reductions
of volatile organic compounds (VOC) to meet the RFP requirements of the
Clean Air Act. Finally, the 1990 emissions inventory estimates used in
the 15% plan as the baseline for reasonable further progress differs
substantially from Pennsylvania's separate 1990 base year emission
inventory SIP submittal. Without justification of these differences,
EPA cannot approve the revised inventory estimates.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be postmarked by September
9, 1996..
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to Kathleen Henry, Acting
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide, and 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, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107. Persons interested in examining these
documents should schedule an appointment with the contact person
(listed below) at least 24 hours before the visiting day. Copies of the
documents relevant to this action are also available at the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air
Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian K. Rehn, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
and Mobile Sources Section (3AT21), USEPA--Region III, 841 Chestnut
Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, or by telephone at:
(215)566-2176. Questions may also be addressed via e-mail, at the
following address: Rehn.Brian@epamail.epa.gov [Please note that only
written comments can be accepted for inclusion in the docket.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (the Act), as amended in
1990, requires ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or
above to develop plans to reduce VOC emissions by fifteen percent from
the 1990 baseline inventory for the area. These ``15% plans'' were due
to be submitted to EPA by November 15, 1993, with the reductions to
occur within 6 years of enactment (i.e. November 15, 1996).
Furthermore, the Clean Air Act sets limitations on the creditability of
certain control measures towards reasonable further progress.
Specifically, States cannot take credit for reductions achieved by
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) measures (e.g. new car
emissions standards) promulgated prior to 1990; or for reductions
stemming from regulations promulgated prior to 1990 to lower the
volatility (i.e., Reid Vapor Pressure) of gasoline. Furthermore, the
Act does not allow credit towards RFP for post-1990 corrections to
existing motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs or
corrections to reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules,
since these programs were required to be in-place prior to 1990.
Additionally, section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act requires
``contingency measures'' to be included in the plan revision. These
measures are required to
[[Page 36321]]
be implemented immediately if reasonable further progress is not
achieved, or if the NAAQS standard is not attained under the deadlines
set forth in the Clean Air Act.
In Pennsylvania, three nonattainment areas are subject to the Clean
Air Act 15 Percent rate-of-progress requirements. These are the
Philadelphia severe nonattainment area, the Pittsburgh moderate
nonattainment area, and the Reading moderate nonattainment area. On
July, 19, 1995, EPA published, in the Federal Register, a final rule
waiving the 15% rate-of-progress requirements for the Pittsburgh and
Reading moderate ozone nonattainment areas. The basis for that action
was a May 10, 1995, EPA policy memo allowing such ``waivers'' for areas
having ambient monitoring data which demonstrated compliance with the
ozone standard. On June 4, 1996, EPA revoked the waiver for the
Pittsburgh area, and reinstated the 15% plan requirement. Pennsylvania
submitted separate SIP revisions for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The
15% plan for the Philadelphia area (Philadelphia 15% plan) was
submitted by Pennsylvania on November 15, 1994, and was re-submitted on
January 18, 1995. The Philadelphia metropolitan area includes counties
in New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, as well as Pennsylvania, all of
which must demonstrate reasonable further progress. However,
Pennsylvania is only responsible for achieving RFP within the
Pennsylvania portion of that metropolitan area. The Commonwealth did
not enter an agreement with the other states which comprise the metro
Philadelphia area to do a multi-state 15% plan, and submitted only a
plan to reduce Pennsylvania's contribution by fifteen percent. EPA is
taking action today only on Pennsylvania's 15% plan submittal, which
addresses only the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia
metropolitan area. EPA will act separately on the Pittsburgh 15% plan,
at a later date.
EPA has reviewed the January 18, 1995 Philadelphia area 15% plan
submittal and has identified several significant deficiencies, which
prohibit approval of this SIP, per section 110 of the Clean Air Act. A
detailed discussion of these deficiencies is included below, in the
``Analysis'' portion of this rulemaking action, and also in the
technical support document (TSD) for this action. Due to these
deficiencies, the 15 percent plan, and the associated contingency
measure plan, will not achieve the total reductions required by the
rate-of-progress requirements of the Act. Therefore, EPA is proposing
disapproval of the plan. This action in no way implies disapproval, or
any other action, with respect to the individual control measures
utilized in the 15% plan or the contingency plan.
Today's action addresses only the approvability of measures towards
the reasonable further progress requirement of the Act, and does not
address whether the control measures or inventories included in the 15%
plan comply with any specific underlying requirements of the Act. For
further information regarding EPA's analysis of the Commonwealth's
submittal, please refer to the TSD for this action (found in the
official docket). A summary of the EPA's findings follows.
Analysis of the SIP Revision
Base Year Emission Inventory
The baseline from which states must determine the required
reductions for 15 percent planning is the 1990 base year emission
inventory. The inventory is broken down into several emissions source
categories: stationary, area, on-road mobile sources, and off-road
mobile sources. Pennsylvania submitted a formal SIP revision containing
their official 1990 base year emission inventory on November 12, 1992.
EPA has not yet taken rulemaking action on that inventory submittal.
There are significant differences between the source categories in the
officially submitted 1990 base year inventory and those contained in
the 1990 base year inventory in the Philadelphia 15% plan, although
total VOC emissions do not substantially vary. The Commonwealth did not
acknowledge the inconsistencies in the 15% plan inventory, nor did the
Commonwealth attempt to substantiate these differences. Furthermore,
the base year inventory in the 15% plan lacks sufficient detail for EPA
to accept it as a replacement for the official 1990 base year inventory
SIP revision. Nor has Pennsylvania requested EPA to do so. Refer to the
TSD for a specific comparison of the inventories. EPA intends to
conduct separate rulemaking action on Pennsylvania's 1990 inventory
submittal, at a later date.
Growth in Emissions Between 1990 and 1996
EPA has interpreted the Clean Air Act to require that reasonable
further progress towards attainment of the ozone standard must be
obtained after offsetting any growth expected to occur over that
period. Therefore, to meet the 15% RFP requirement, a state must enact
measures achieving sufficient emissions reductions to offset projected
growth in emissions, in addition to a 15 percent reduction of VOC
emissions. Thus, an estimate of emissions growth from 1990 to 1996 is
necessary for demonstrating reasonable further progress. 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 sources 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.
Pennsylvania's 15% plan contains growth projections for point,
area, on-road motor vehicle, and non-road vehicle source categories.
For a detailed description of the growth methodologies used by the
Commonwealth, please refer to the TSD for this action. In general, EPA
approves the Commonwealth's 1990-1996 emissions growth projections,
with one exception.
EPA disagrees with the growth projections for the on-road vehicle
category. The Commonwealth's 15% plan indicates that highway vehicle
emissions growth is based on growth in total vehicle miles of travel
(VMT) for the region, which the Commonwealth expects to increase by 7.7
million miles per day, and that on-road emissions are projected to
decrease by 11.9 tons/day. Since emissions from on-highway emissions
control measures are calculated separately in the plan (including
reductions associated with fleet turnover and the pre-1990 motor
vehicle standards) and Pennsylvania indicates that this growth is based
solely upon increasing VMT growth, it is unclear how motor vehicle
emissions are declining. Therefore, EPA cannot approve the
Commonwealth's on-road motor vehicle growth projection. Growth in
highway emissions should be determined independently of mobile source
control strategies. Additionally, the 15% plan should indicate what, if
any, other factors effect highway emissions growth, other than the
previously identified VMT influence.
Calculation of Target Level Emissions
Pennsylvania calculated a ``target level'' of 1996 VOC emissions,
per EPA guidance. First, the Commonwealth calculated the non-creditable
reductions from the FMVCP program and subtracted those emissions from
the 15 percent plans's 1990 inventory estimate. This yields the 1990
``adjusted inventory''. The emission reduction required to meet the 15
percent rate-of-progress requirement equals the sum of 15 percent of
the adjusted inventory and
[[Page 36322]]
any reductions necessary to offset emissions growth projected to occur
between 1990 and 1996, plus reductions that resulted from corrections
to the I/M or VOC RACT rules that were required to be in-place before
1990. Table 1 summarizes the calculations for the five-county
Philadelphia area's 1 VOC target level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The five-county Philadelphia area is comprised of the
following counties: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and
Philadelphia.
Table 1.--Calculation of Required Reductions for the Philadelphia
Nonattainment Area's 15% Plan
[Tons/day]
1990 Base Year Emission Inventory [15% plan version].......... 629.27
Adjustments for FMVCP/RVP programs in-place (prior to 1990)... -32.95
1990 Adjusted Inventory....................................... 596.32
15% of the 1990 Adjusted Inventory............................ 89.45
Reductions from Previously Required RACT Rule Corrections..... 0.84
Projected 1990-1996 Emissions Growth.......................... 8.12
1996 Target Level............................................. 506.03
1996 2 Projection Inventory................................... 637.39
Required Reduction............................................ 131.36
2 1996 forecast emissions (projected from 1990), reflecting only
emissions growth and in-place (or, pre-1990) controls.
Control Strategies in the 15% Plan
The specific measures adopted (either through state or federal
rules) for the Philadelphia area are addressed, in detail, in the
Commonwealth's 15% plan. The following is a brief description of each
control measure Pennsylvania has claimed credit for in the submitted
15% plan, as well as the results of EPA's review of the use of that
strategy towards the Clean Air Act rate-of-progress requirement.
Creditable Emission Control Strategies
The control measures described below are creditable towards the
rate-of-progress requirements of the Act. However, the Commonwealth has
in many cases failed to fully document the claimed reductions,
particularly in the case of mobile source measures, which Pennsylvania
estimates using a Post-Processor for Air Quality (PPAQ) computer model.
This model uses MOBILE modeling information as input, and determines
total reductions for mobile source control strategies. The Commonwealth
provided no documentation from this modeling, with the exception of
sample MOBILE input and output files and modeling assumptions which are
used as input to the PPAQ. Therefore, for nearly every mobile source
control strategy utilized, the 15% plan lacks detailed documentation to
support the claimed reductions. EPA is not disapproving these measures,
or the creditability of such measures. However, EPA cannot fully
approve the reductions from the measures without additional
documentation to verify the emissions estimates. For further details
regarding EPA's review of the Commonwealth's control measures, please
refer to EPA's TSD for this action, located in the docket.
Stage II Vapor Recovery
This state-adopted regulation requires the installation and
operation of vapor recovery equipment on gasoline dispensing pumps to
reduce vehicle refueling emissions. The state regulation for this
program is codified in 25 PA Code Sec. 129.75. EPA approved the
Commonwealth's Stage II program on June 13, 1994 (59 FR 112). EPA
supports the Commonwealth's use of this measure towards the rate-of-
progress requirement. However, EPA is unable to fully verify the 17.0
tons/day credit estimate claimed by the Commonwealth for this program,
due to a lack of detail regarding the methodology used to quantify
Stage II reductions for the 15% plan.
Automobile Refinishing
EPA is in the process of adopting a national rule to control VOC
emissions from solvent evaporation through reformulation of coatings
used in auto body refinishing processes. These coatings are typically
used by small businesses, or by vehicle owners. VOC emissions emanate
from the evaporation of solvents used in the coating process.
Pennsylvania's 15% plan claims reductions from EPA's national rule.
Use of emissions reductions from EPA's expected national rule is
acceptable towards the 15% plan target. Pennsylvania claims a 35%
reduction, or 6.8 tons/day from their 1996 projected uncontrolled
autobody refinishing emissions. Due to inventory documentation
deficiencies in the 15% plan, EPA cannot verify the claimed reduction.
Reformulated Gasoline
Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act requires that, beginning
January 1, 1995, only reformulated gasoline be sold or dispensed in
ozone nonattainment areas classified as severe, or worse. This gasoline
is reformulated to reduce combustion by-products and to produce fewer
evaporative emissions. As a severe area, Philadelphia benefits from the
emission reductions from this program. However, EPA again cannot verify
the reductions from this program, based on the documentation provided
by the Commonwealth in the 15% plan.
Transportation, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) Rule
TSDFs are private facilities that manage dilute wastewater,
organic/inorganic sludges, and organic/inorganic solids. Waste disposal
can be done by various means including: incineration, treatment, or
underground injection or landfilling. EPA promulgated a national rule
on June 21, 1990 for the control of TSDF emissions. Pennsylvania claims
an expected VOC reduction of 3.13 tons/day from this national rule.
This measure is creditable towards the rate-of-progress requirements of
the Act. However, due to conflicts between the 1990 base and 1996
projected uncontrolled emissions from this emissions category, EPA
cannot verify this claimed reduction.
Rule Effectiveness (RE) Improvements
Rule effectiveness is a means of enhancing rule compliance or
implementation by industrial sources, and is expressed as a percentage
of total available reductions from a control measure. The default
assumption level for rule effectiveness is 80%. Pennsylvania claims RE
improvements from the 80% default level to a level of 90% in their 15%
plan SIP revision for Philadelphia, based upon improvements to RACT
regulations for twenty-nine facilities in the 5-county Philadelphia
area. The applicable RACT rules pertain to surface coating operations
(PA Code Sec. 129.52) and offset printing operations (PA Code
Sec. 129.67).
Pennsylvania followed EPA policy to quantify emissions reductions
from specific RE improvements for two categories, in the absence of
quantifiable compliance or emissions data. The RE measures Pennsylvania
claims toward the 15% plan include facility improvements, as well as
improved state oversight. Facility measures include: Improved operator
training, better operation and maintenance of process equipment,
improved source monitoring/reporting. State oversight improvements
include: More inspector training, stringent compliance inspections of
all RE improvement facilities. If the final facility inspections
identify a shortfall from the projected RE emission improvements,
Pennsylvania will utilize the ``surplus'' projected emissions
reductions (i.e., the RE improvement from 90%-94%) to alleviate the
shortfall. The state also claimed this four percent RE improvement as a
contingency measure in the plan. In the event that these
[[Page 36323]]
contingency reductions are needed to satisfy the 15% reduction
requirement, Pennsylvania must substitute another contingency measure
in place of this RE measure. For EPA's detailed analysis of this
measure, please refer to the appropriate section of the TSD for this
action. RE improvements are creditable toward the 15% plan requirement
of the Clean Air Act, and EPA supports Pennsylvania's emissions
projections for this measure. Therefore, Pennsylvania's claimed RE
improvements are approvable towards the 15% requirement of the Act.
Permanent VOC Source/Facility Shutdowns
Several industrial VOC sources that were operational in 1990 (i.e.
included in the base year inventory) have since shut down either
processes or entire facilities. Pennsylvania has adopted a banking rule
(25 Pa Code Sec. 127.208), which requires that sources wishing to bank
emission reduction credits, or ERCs, must do so within one year of
initiation of the shutdown. If not, the Commonwealth can claim credit
for the reductions as permanent and enforceable emissions reductions.
Pennsylvania's 15% plan claims partial credit for shutdowns for
which the source ``banked'' emissions reductions, and the Commonwealth
claimed the entire shutdown credit for sources that did not bank their
emissions within the one year deadline set forth in Pennsylvania's
banking rule. The 15% plan reflects shutdowns from twenty-one VOC
sources in the Philadelphia nonattainment area. These credits are
ineligible for use as future ERCs, or to offset emissions from new
sources under the Commonwealth's new source review regulation.
Reductions from this measure are both permanent and enforceable,
since the shutdowns are reflected in RACT permit conditions for the
facility. EPA is approving the use of these reductions.
Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings (AIM)
Emission reductions have been projected for AIM coatings due to the
expected promulgation by the EPA of a national rule. In a memo dated
March 22, 1995, EPA allowed states to claim a 20% reduction of total
AIM emissions from the national rule. Pennsylvania claimed a 15%
reduction in AIM emissions under its 15% plan. However, due to
deficiencies in the documentation of this portion of the underlying
emissions inventory, EPA cannot verify the claimed reduction.
Tier I Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
EPA promulgated a national rule establishing ``new car'' standards
for 1994 and newer model year light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks
on June 5, 1991 (56 FR 25724). Since the standards were adopted after
the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990, the resulting emission
reductions are creditable toward the 15 percent reduction goal. The EPA
agrees with the State's projected emission reductions. Due to the
three-year phase-in period for this program, and the associated
benefits stemming from fleet turnover, the reductions prior to 1996 are
somewhat limited. Pennsylvania claimed a reduction of 4.5 tons/day from
this post-1990 Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program. As with other on-
highway mobile source control measures, the reductions from this
program cannot be verified without further information.
Off-Road Use of Reformulated Gasoline
The use of reformulated gasoline will also result in reduced
emissions from off-road engines such as outboard motors for boats and
lawn mower engines. The EPA agrees with the 0.59 ton/day reduction
projected in the 15% plan for off-road engines utilizing reformulated
gasoline.
Non-creditable Emissions Control Measures
The following control measure is not creditable towards meeting the
rate-of-progress requirements of the Clean Air Act. This measure, as it
is described in the submitted 15% plan, is no longer in-place.
Therefore, the emission reduction projected for this program is
invalid.
Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program
The I/M program described in the Commonwealth's 15% plan is a
contractor-operated, centralized, IM240 inspection program. This
program was conditionally approved by EPA in August of 1994. However,
since that time, Pennsylvania suspended operation of this program,
terminated the test inspector contract, and began the rule adoption
process for a decentralized program as a replacement for the
centralized program. Pennsylvania submitted a new I/M program SIP to
EPA, under authority provided by the National Highway Systems
Designation Act of 1995, on March 22, 1996. However, Pennsylvania has
not revised the 15% plan for Philadelphia to reflect differences in the
I/M program description and projected emissions reductions.
Reasonable Further Progress Shortfall
Table 2 summarizes the proposed creditable and non-creditable
reductions from Pennsylvania's 15% plan for the Philadelphia area.
While the reductions listed as ``creditable'' in this table can be used
to satisfy the Clean Air Act's reasonable further progress
requirements, the measures in many cases are not approvable because of
deficiencies related to quantification, lack of detailed emission
inventory information, and documentation deficiencies (particularly
related to mobile source control strategies).
Summary of Creditable and Non-creditable Emission Reductions for the
Philadelphia Ozone Nonattainment Area
[Tons/day]
Required Reduction for the Philadelphia area................... 131.36
Creditable Reductions
Stage II 1................................................. 117.02
FMVCP (Tier I) 1........................................... 4.51
Auto Refinishing 1......................................... 6.79
Rule Effectiveness Improvements (80%-90%).................. 21.55
Reformulated Gasoline--Highway 1...........................
Non-road vehicle use of RFG \1\........................ 0.59
Industrial Facility Shutdowns.............................. 3.24
AIM Coatings Rules \1\..................................... 5.96
TSDF Controls \1\.......................................... 3.13
--------
Total.................................................... 85.85
========
Reductions not Approvable: Inspection & Maintenance Program \1\ 45.64
--------
Total not approved....................................... 45.64
--------
Shortfall (from target level).................................. 45.51
1 Pennsylvania's claimed reduction. This estimate cannot be verified
based on the supporting documentation (e.g. supporting modeling,
sample calculations, base year inventory references, etc.) For
specific deficiencies related to an individual category, refer to the
applicable portion of section III of EPA's technical support document
entitled ``Evaluation of the Commonwealth's 15% Plan Control
Measures'', located in the official docket for this action.
Contingency Measures
Per section 172(c)(9) of the Act, for ozone nonattainment areas
classified as moderate or above, states must include contingency
measures in their 15% plan submittals. These are measures which are to
be immediately implemented if reasonable further progress (RFP) is not
achieved, or if the areas do not attain the NAAQS standard by the
applicable date mandated by the Act. EPA's interpretation of this Clean
Air Act requirement is set forth in The General Preamble to Title I (57
FR 13498), which requires that the contingency measures should, at a
minimum, ensure that emissions reductions continue to be made if RFP
(or attainment) is not
[[Page 36324]]
achieved in a timely manner, and additional planning by the state is
needed. EPA interprets the Act to require States with moderate and
above ozone nonattainment areas to include sufficient contingency
measures in the 15% plan SIP submittal, such that upon implementation
of those measures, additional emissions reductions of up to three
percent 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. States must show that their
contingency measures can be implemented with minimal further action on
their part, and with no additional rulemaking actions (e.g. public
hearings, legislative review, etc.). EPA has further interpreted the
Act to allow states to substitute NOx control measures to achieve
a portion of the required contingency measure reductions.
Analysis of Specific Contingency Measures
The following is a discussion of each of the contingency measures
that have been included in the SIP submittals and an analysis of their
approvability.
VOC Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
The CAA requires states to adopt regulatory programs mandating RACT
control strategies for major sources located in ozone nonattainment
areas. Since Philadelphia is a severe ozone nonattainment area, the CAA
threshold for major sources is 25 tons/year. Pennsylvania determined
reductions from certain classes of major source complying with RACT (on
a case-by-case basis) within the Philadelphia area, and claimed a 1.02
ton/day reduction from VOC RACT, for use as a contingency measure.
However, EPA interprets the Act to prohibit the use of mandatory
measures (i.e. those specified under the Clean Air Act for an
applicable nonattainment area) as contingency measures, unless such a
measure is in place to reduce another pollutant, and additionally
provides VOC or NOx reductions. Therefore, Pennsylvania's VOC RACT
reduction is not creditable as a contingency measure, since VOC RACT is
required to be implemented, prior to 1996, under section 182 of the
Act.
Employee Commute Options Program
The Clean Air Act required severe nonattainment areas to adopt an
employee trip reduction (ETR) program, providing a 25% reduction in
average vehicle occupancy levels during the summer morning ``rush
hour'' period. In a letter of February 27, 1995 from Pennsylvania
Governor Tom Ridge, Pennsylvania announced the suspension of
implementation and enforcement of the Commonwealth's adopted ETR
program. However, the Commonwealth has not removed the ETR regulation
from the Pennsylvania Code of Regulations, but has encouraged voluntary
``trip reduction'' efforts. Since then, Congress has removed the
requirement for this program and EPA has issued guidance interpreting
Congress's revised legislation. This guidance indicates that ETR need
not be implemented if a state undertakes additional measures to make up
the ``emissions shortfall'' caused by suspension of the program.
Pennsylvania's 15% plan SIP claims credit for early implementation
of ETR as a contingency measure, based on the assumption that the
program would be implemented in 1996 and would achieve the predicted
emissions benefits at that time. The 15% plan claims ``full'' credit
for the program, not accounting for its voluntary nature. EPA cannot
approve the Commonwealth's ETR program, as claimed within the 15% plan.
However, this measure would be approvable if the Commonwealth amended
the 15% plan to provide for reimplementation of the ETR regulation to
require a future mandatory ETR program.
NOx Source/Process Shutdowns
Pennsylvania is claiming credit, as a contingency measure, for
emissions reductions credits from four facilities that banked emissions
reduction credits from permanent NOx process shutdowns, under the
state's banking rule. These shutdowns occurred after 1990, but before
1996. Pennsylvania's banking regulation is found at 25 Pa. Code
Sec. 127.210. The sources for which the Commonwealth claims contingency
measure credit include: U.S. Steel--Fairless Hills, Martin Marietta
Astro Space, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, and Marck Co., Inc.
These reductions are permanent, since the shutdowns are to be
reflected as RACT permit conditions in the facilities' revised permits.
EPA interprets section 182(b)(1) of the Act to require that for the
period from 1990 to 1996, only VOC reductions are creditable towards
the 15% plan requirement. Furthermore, any contingency measure
implemented early (i.e., before 1997) must also be a VOC measure, in
order to be creditable as a contingency measure for failure to reach
the 15% RFP milestone. Since the claimed shutdowns are NOx
reductions that occurred prior to 1996, the reductions are not
approvable as a contingency measure to meet the reasonable further
progress requirements of the Clean Air Act. Additionally, in order for
a NOx measure to be creditable as a contingency measure (i.e.
reductions occur after 1996), the state must demonstrate that total
NOx reduction from all combined NOx control strategies does
not exceed 2.7% of the adjusted 1990 base year NOx inventory.
Pennsylvania did not submit a 1990 baseline NOx inventory, nor
attempt to make the above demonstration.
Improved Rule Effectiveness (90%-94% Level)
Pennsylvania credits rule effectiveness (RE) improvements from the
80% default level to a level of 90% toward the 15% plan SIP obligation.
However, the Commonwealth maintains that the actual RE improvement is
94%, and is utilizing the improvements from the 90% to 94% level as a
contingency measure. These RE improvements are obtained from VOC RACT
regulations (for the Philadelphia area) pertaining to two categories--
surface coating operations (PA Code Sec. 129.52) and offset printing
operations (PA Code Sec. 129.67). Table 5.2 of the 15% plan lists those
facilities from which the Commonwealth assumes increased RE credits.
These are the same facilities listed for RE improvements towards the
15% rate-of-progress plan. If the Commonwealth identifies a shortfall
in their rule effectiveness claim (the 80-90% level) in the 15% plan,
then the Commonwealth will utilize the reductions from the 90-94% RE
level to make up a shortfall in their 15% plan. In that event, another
contingency measure must be adopted to make up any shortfall thereby
created in the Commonwealth's contingency measure portion of the SIP.
EPA approves Pennsylvania's use of this measure, and the credits
claimed for its use as a contingency measure. The reductions occurring
from this measure will be in place prior to 1996, the earliest time by
which reductions for a contingency measure would be needed. However,
EPA has issued policy allowing states to implement contingency measures
early (without penalty), assuming that such a measure is not a
mandatory Part D requirement under the Act.
Consumer and Commercial Products Reformulation
Section 183(e) of the Clean Air 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
[[Page 36325]]
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
reasonable further progress requirement. Pennsylvania determined
reductions from implementation of this national rule, but claimed
credit for the program as a contingency measure. However, EPA has
interpreted the Clean Air Act to disallow the use of mandatory
measures, i.e. those required by the Act to be implemented in an ozone
nonattainment area, as contingency measures. Therefore, for the same
reason that Pennsylvania cannot utilize VOC RACT as a contingency
measure, the state cannot use the consumer products national rule as a
contingency measure.
Highway Marking Paints
This measure requires, through a memorandum of understanding with
the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), a conversion
from solvent-based to low- or non-VOC paints when painting traffic
lines on highway surfaces in the Philadelphia area. EPA considers
highway paints as a subset of the AIM coating emissions category, for
which Pennsylvania has already claimed emissions reduction in the 15%
plan. However, Pennsylvania claims that highway markings are a
separately inventoried category. PennDOT estimates for traffic line
painting VOC emissions are based on the solvent formulation and usage
estimates based on population, and assume a total annual reduction of
58%-73%, compared to solvent-based paints. Pennsylvania claims a VOC
reduction in 1996 of 1.56 tons/day. The 15% plan SIP revision does not
indicate whether Pennsylvania has executed a memorandum of
understanding, the implementation mechanism for this program. This
contingency measure involves product reformulations, which are
presently commercially available, and utilizes a non-regulatory, yet
binding, mechanism for the state to require this measure. EPA assumes
that this measure could be enacted within 60 days of the Commonwealth's
failure to achieve the RFP requirements of the Clean Air Act, and is
therefore an approvable contingency measure.
Table 3.--Summary of Contingency Measures and Associated Reductions
(tons/day) for the Philadelphia Nonattainment Area
Required Contingency........................................... 17.88
========
Creditable Reductions:
Traffic Line Paint Reformulation........................... 1.56
Rule Effectiveness Improvement (90%94%)........... 8.63
--------
Total Creditable Reductions............................ 10.19
========
Reductions not Creditable:
VOC RACT reductions........................................ 1.02
Consumer/Commercial Products (National Rule)............... 6.68
NOX Source/Facility Shutdowns (post-1990).................. \1\ 1.4
6
Employer Trip Reduction Program............................ 0.93
--------
Total non-creditable reductions........................ 10.09
========
Shortfall.............................................. 7.69
\1\ NOX reduction is listed as a VOC equivalent reduction, based on a
NOX/VOC conversion factor (see discussion of measure in the TSD).
III. Proposed Action
The EPA has evaluated this submittal for consistency with the Clean
Air Act, applicable EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Pennsylvania's 15
percent plan for Philadelphia will not achieve sufficient reductions to
meet the 15 percent rate-of-progress requirements of section 182(b)(1)
of the Act. In addition, the contingency plans in these SIP submittals
would not achieve sufficient emission reductions to meet the three
percent reduction requirement, under 172(c)(9) of the Act.
Additionally, there are measures included in the plan, which are
creditable towards the Act requirement, but which are insufficiently
documented to qualify for Clean Air Act approval. EPA has not included
these measures as part of the 15% plan or contingency measure
shortfall, although the reductions from these measures are not fully
approvable towards the RFP requirement. Finally, the baseline 1990
emissions inventory contained in the Commonwealth's 15% plan varies
from the state's officially submitted 1990 emissions inventory SIP
revision, without justification or documentation.
In light of the above deficiencies, EPA is proposing to disapprove
this SIP revision under section 110(k)(3) and section 301(a) of the
Act. The submittal does not satisfy the requirements of section
182(b)(1) of the Act regarding the 15 percent reasonable further
progress plan, nor the requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the Clean
Air Act regarding contingency measures.
EPA is aware that Pennsylvania is currently revising the 15% plan,
which the Commonwealth intends to submit in the near future. Since
Congress passed the National Highway Systems Designation Act of 1995,
which amended federal I/M program requirements and granted states
authority to revise their I/M programs, and Pennsylvania has utilized
that authority to revise its I/M program, revision of the 15% plan to
reflect the I/M program changes is expected. When the Commonwealth
submits a revised 15% plan, EPA expects they will withdraw the SIP
revision which is the subject of today's action. Upon receipt of the
revised 15% plan submittal, EPA will undertake a separate review of
that plan for compliance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. If
the deficiencies cited in today's action are remedied by the revised
submittal, EPA will withdraw this proposed disapproval and propose
approval of that submittal.
Nothing in today's action 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
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
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.
EPA's proposed disapproval of the State request under section 110
and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any
existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing
federal requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal
disapproval of the state submittal does not affect its state-
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not
impose any new federal requirement. Therefore, EPA certifies that this
proposed disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove
existing
[[Page 36326]]
requirements and impose any new federal requirements.
Under section 179(a)(2), if the EPA Administrator takes final
disapproval action on a submission under section 110(k) for an area
designated nonattainment based on the submission's failure to meet one
or more of the elements required by the Act, the Administrator must
apply one of the sanctions set forth in section 179(b) of the Act
(unless the deficiency has been corrected within 18 months of such
disapproval). Section 179(b) provides two sanctions available to the
Administrator: revocation of highway funding and the imposition of
emission offset requirements. The 18-month period referred to in
section 179(a) will begin on the effective date established in the
final disapproval action. If the deficiency is not corrected within 6
months of the imposition of the first sanction, the second sanction
will apply. This sanctions process is set forth in 40 CFR 52.31.
Today's action serves only to propose disapproval of the Commonwealth's
SIP revision, and does not constitute final agency action. Thus, the
sanctions process described above does not commence with today's
action.
Also, 40 CFR 51.448(b) of the federal transportation conformity
rules (40 CFR 51.448(b)) state that if the EPA disapproves a submitted
control strategy implementation plan revision which initiates the
sanction process under Act section 179, the conformity status of the
transportation plan and transportation improvement plan shall lapse 120
days after the EPA's disapproval.
Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting
Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register.
This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of the
APA as amended.
This disapproval action for the Pennsylvania 15% plan for
Philadelphia 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 (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
The Regional Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the
SIP revision 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: July 1, 1996.
W. T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-17546 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
