Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Conditional Interim Approval of Implementation Plans; Massachusetts

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MA-25-7197b; FRL-5846-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Conditional

Interim Approval of Implementation Plans; Massachusetts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing action on State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The EPA is

proposing approval of the Massachusetts 1990 base year ozone emission

inventories, and also proposing approval of the establishment of a

Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) network. The EPA

proposes conditional interim approval of SIP revisions submitted by the

Commonwealth to meet the 15 Percent Rate of Progress (ROP) Plan and

Contingency plan requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

The inventories were submitted by Massachusetts to satisfy a CAA

requirement that those States containing ozone nonattainment areas

(NAAs) classified as marginal to extreme submit inventories of actual

ozone season emissions from all sources in accordance with EPA

guidance. The PAMS SIP revision was submitted to provide for the

establishment and maintenance of an enhanced ambient air quality

monitoring network by November 15, 1993. The 15 Percent ROP and

contingency plans were submitted to satisfy CAA provisions that require

ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above to devise

plans to reduce Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions 15 percent by

1996 when compared to a 1990 baseline. EPA is proposing conditional

interim approval because the 15 percent and contingency plans submitted

by Massachusetts rely on the emission reductions from an automobile

emission inspection and maintenance (I/M) program that in a separate

action in the rules section of today's Federal Register is receiving a

conditional interim approval.

In the final rules section of today's Federal Register, the EPA is

fully approving the Massachusetts 1990 base year inventory, and fully

approving the establishment of a PAMS network as a direct final rule

without prior proposal, because the Agency views these as

noncontroversial revision amendments and anticipates no adverse

comments. A detailed rationale for each approval is set forth in the

direct final rule. The EPA is not publishing a direct final rule for

the conditional interim approval of the Massachusetts 15 percent ROP

and contingency plans. If no adverse comments are received on this

direct final rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to

this proposed rule for these revisions. If EPA receives any material

adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second

comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting

on this document should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be postmarked by August

13, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Susan

Studlien, Deputy Director, Office of Ecosystem Protection,

Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Building, One

Congress Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02203. Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the EPA Region I office, and at the

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air

Quality Control, One Winter Street, 7th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts,

02108-4746. Persons interested in examining these documents should make

an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before the

visiting day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. McConnell, Air Quality

Planning Unit, EPA Region I, JFK Federal Building, One Congress Street,

Boston, Massachusetts, 02203; telephone (617) 565-9266.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For supplementary information regarding the

Massachusetts 1990 base year emission inventory or establishment of a

PAMS network, see the information provided in the direct final action

of the same title which is located in the rules section of today's

Federal Register.

Background

Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA as amended in 1990 requires ozone

nonattainment areas with classifications of moderate and above to

develop plans to reduce area-wide anthropogenic VOC emissions by 15

percent from a 1990 baseline. The plans were to be submitted by

November 15, 1993 and the reductions were required to be achieved

within 6 years of enactment or November 15, 1996. The Clean Air Act

also sets limitations on the creditability of certain types of

reductions. Specifically, States cannot take credit for reductions

achieved by Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) measures (new

car emissions standards) promulgated prior to 1990 or for reductions

resulting from requirements to lower the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of

gasoline promulgated prior to 1990. Furthermore, the CAA does not allow

credit for corrections to basic Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

Programs (I/M) or corrections to Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) rules (so called ``RACT fix-ups) as these programs

were required prior to 1990.

In addition, sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the CAA require

that contingency measures be included in the plan revision to be

implemented if the area misses an ozone SIP milestone, or fails to

attain the standard by the date required by the CAA.

There are two serious ozone nonattainment areas within

Massachusetts which together encompass the entire geographic area of

the Commonwealth. Massachusetts is therefore subject to the 15 Percent

ROP requirements. The two areas are referred to as the Boston-Lawrence-

Worcester serious area and the Springfield serious area. The Boston-

Lawrence-Worcester area includes portions of counties in New Hampshire

which also must demonstrate that ROP emission reduction requirements

are met. Massachusetts did not enter into an agreement with New

Hampshire to do a multi-state 15 percent plan, and therefore submitted

a plan to reduce emissions only in the Massachusetts portion of this

area. EPA is taking action today only on the Massachusetts portion of

the Boston-Lawrence-Worcester 15 Percent plan. EPA will act separately

on the New Hampshire portion of the 15 Percent plan for this area at a

later date.

Massachusetts submitted final 15 Percent ROP plans to EPA on

November 15, 1993. The plans contained adopted rules for some, but not

all of the VOC control measures identified within the plan.

Additionally, Massachusetts did not submit contingency plans, or a

commitment to adopt contingency plans by November 15, 1994. The EPA

deemed the Massachusetts 15 Percent plans incomplete by letter dated

January 26, 1994, due to the lack of adopted rules for all of the

control programs identified within the plans. Between January 26, 1994

and January 11, 1995, Massachusetts submitted adopted rules

[[Page 37528]]

for the control strategies identified within the 15 Percent plans.

Revisions to the Commonwealth's 15 Percent ROP plans were submitted to

the EPA on November 15, 1994 and December 30, 1994. On July 24, 1995,

Massachusetts submitted contingency plans to the EPA as a SIP revision.

On March 31, 1997, Massachusetts submitted further revisions to its

15% ROP and contingency plans. The Commonwealth also submitted

revisions to its post 1996 ROP plans on March 31, 1997. EPA is not

proposing action on the Massachusetts post 1996 ROP plans within this

notice.

The EPA has analyzed the submittals made by Massachusetts and

believes that the 15 Percent plans and contingency plans can be given

conditional interim approval because the Commonwealth has accurately

analyzed the emission reductions needed to meet these requirements, and

because the plans will strengthen the SIP by achieving reductions in

emissions. These plans, however, rely to a significant extent upon the

emission reductions from an automobile emission testing program. On

January 30, 1997, EPA published a proposed conditional interim approval

of the Massachusetts I/M program (62 FR 4505). A final conditional

interim approval of the Massachusetts I/M program is being published in

the rules section of today's Federal Register. Since the Massachusetts

15 percent and contingency plans rely to a significant extent upon the

emission reductions from the I/M program, EPA is proposing conditional

interim approval of these plans as well. Full approval of the 15

percent and contingency plans can be granted once the state meets the

conditions outlined in the final action on the state's motor vehicle

testing program. If Massachusetts does not meet those conditions, this

conditional interim approval will convert a limited approval, limited

disapproval. The emission reduction shortfall generated by the

Commonwealth not meeting the conditions outlined in the I/M approval

action will comprise the portion of the 15 percent and contingency

plans which will receive limited disapproval; the remaining portions of

these SIPs will receive limited approval. For a complete discussion of

EPA's analysis of the Massachusetts 15 percent ROP plans and

contingency plans, please refer to the Technical Support Document for

this action which is available as part of the docket supporting this

action. A summary of the EPA's findings follows.

Emission Inventory

The base from which States determine the required reductions in the

15 Percent plan is the 1990 emission inventory. The EPA is approving

the Massachusetts 1990 emission inventory with a direct final action in

the rules section of today's Federal Register. The inventory approved

by the EPA exactly matches the one used in the 15 Percent ROP plan

calculations.

Calculation of Target Level Emissions

Non-creditable reductions from the FMVCP and RVP programs must be

subtracted from the base year inventory to develop what is termed the

1990 adjusted inventory. Massachusetts subtracted the non-creditable

reductions from the FMVCP program from the 1990 inventory. Support

documentation provided to EPA indicates that Massachusetts made this

adjustment correctly.

The Commonwealth's original 15 Percent ROP plan did not include an

adjustment for the RVP of gasoline sold in the state in 1990, despite

the fact that Massachusetts documented that the RVP of gasoline sold

during 1990 was 8.6. The revised 15 Percent ROP plan does contain an

RVP adjustment within the calculation procedure used to develop the

adjusted base year inventory. The Commonwealth performed this

adjustment consistent with the guidance contained within the addendum

to the EPA document, ``Guidance for Growth Factors, Projections, and

Control Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans.'' The

adjustment consisted of a recalculation of adjusted 1996 on-road mobile

source emissions using an RVP of 9.0. The net effect of the adjustments

made for the FMVCP and RVP programs was that 32 tons per summer day

(tpsd) of VOC were subtracted (statewide) from the 1990 baseline,

anthropogenic emission estimate.

The total emission reduction required to meet the 15 Percent ROP

plan requirements equals the sum of the following items: 15 percent of

the adjusted inventory, reductions that occur from noncreditable

programs such as the FMVCP and RVP programs as required prior to 1990,

reductions needed to offset any growth in emissions that takes place

between 1990 and 1996, and reductions that result from corrections to

the I/M or VOC RACT rules. Table 1 summarizes these calculations for

the two serious ozone nonattainment areas in Massachusetts.

Table 1.--Calculation of Required Reductions (Tons/Summer Day)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bos-Law-

Wor

---------------------------------------------------Springfield----------

1990 ROP Emission Inventory 1.................... 153 795

1990 Adjusted Inventory 2........................ 147 769

15% of Adjusted Inventory........................ 22 115

Non-creditable Reductions........................ 10 39

1996 Target 3.................................... 122 640

1996 Adjusted Target 4........................... 118 625

1996 5 Projected, Uncontrolled Emissions......... 152 801

Required Reduction 6............................. 34 176

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Perchloroethylene and acetone emissions were subtracted from the

anthropogenic inventory due to their addition to the list of

photochemically non-reactive VOCs.

2 FMVCP and RVP adjustments incorporated.

3 1996 Target is obtained by subtracting 15 percent of the adjusted

inventory and the non-creditable reductions from the 1990 ROP

inventory. Note that Massachusetts rounded its calculations to the

nearest whole number, which may result in totals that appear off by

one ton per summer day.

4 1996 adjusted target reflects subtraction of additional increment of

FMVCP from 1996 to 1999, as required by December 23, 1996 guidance

memorandum from Gay MacGregor and Sally Shaver to the Regional Air

Directors on this topic.

5 1996 uncontrolled emissions for on-road mobile sources were calculated

using an emission factor that reflected the level of control achieved

by the FMVCP in 1996. Reductions from RACT and I/M fixups were also

subtracted in deriving 1996 uncontrolled emissions.

6 Required Reductions were obtained by subtracting 1996 adjusted target

from the 1996 projected uncontrolled inventory.

Measures Achieving the Projected Reductions

Massachusetts has provided a plan to achieve the reductions

required for its two serious ozone nonattainment areas. The following

is a description of each control measure Massachusetts used to achieve

emission reduction credit within its 15 percent ROP plans.

A. Point Source Controls

Massachusetts estimates that projected, controlled point source

emission will decrease by 8 tpsd by 1996 when compared to base year

point source emissions. The majority of these reductions are expected

to occur from ``RACT fixups,'' and are not creditable emission

reductions. Massachusetts correctly addressed the emission reductions

that will occur from RACT fixups within the calculations performed to

estimate the emission reduction obligations for the two serious areas.

[[Page 37529]]

Massachusetts has claimed approximately 1 tpsd in emission

reduction credit from point sources within its ROP plans. This

reduction is sought due to the implementation of ``50 ton VOC RACT'' on

stationary sources with the potential to emit 50 tons/year of VOC. The

Commonwealth's 15% ROP plan contains a list of the specific facilities

from which emission reductions are anticipated. The list includes the

quantity of emission reductions, and the relevant state rule applicable

to the source. The Commonwealth has submitted the point source RACT

rules to EPA for incorporation into the SIP. EPA has not approved the

rules, but intends to by the time final action is taken on the

Massachusetts 15 percent plans. The reductions claimed by the

Commonwealth from point sources are approvable.

B. Area Source Controls

Automobile Refinishing

Massachusetts has adopted and submitted to the EPA an automobile

refinishing regulation that will limit VOC emissions from this source

category by regulating the VOC content of automotive refinishing

products. The rule was submitted on January 9, 1995, and deemed

complete on January 20, 1995. The rule was approved by EPA within the

Federal Register on February 14, 1996 (61 FR 5696).

The state assumed a 40 percent control efficiency would be achieved

by the automobile refinishing rule. On November 29, 1994, EPA issued a

final guidance memorandum that allowed States to assume a 37 percent

control level for this source category without adopting a State rule

due to a pending National rule.

Although Massachusetts projected a slightly higher control

efficiency than what is expected from the pending federal rule, this

seems justified because the equipment standards requiring higher

transfer efficiency for application equipment contained in the

Massachusetts rule will generate emission reductions not expected from

the federal rule, which will not have such provisions. Accordingly, EPA

proposes to accept the Commonwealth's control efficiency estimate, even

though it is slightly higher than what EPA has projected for its

National rule.

Massachusetts projects statewide 1996 uncontrolled emissions for

this source category as 31 tpsd. The rule is expected to reduce

emissions to 18 tpsd, for a 13 tpsd emission reduction.

Commercial and Consumer Products

On January 9, 1995, Massachusetts submitted an adopted rule

regarding commercial and consumer products to the EPA as a SIP

revision. The rule, entitled, ``Best Available Controls for Consumer

and Commercial Products,'' was deemed complete on January 15, 1995. The

EPA approved the rule as part of the Massachusetts SIP on December 19,

1995 (60 FR 65240). EPA agrees with the 7 tpsd emission reduction

calculated by Massachusetts for this source category.

Architectural Coatings

The consumer and commercial products rule adopted by Massachusetts

and approved by EPA that is discussed above also contains emission

limits for architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings. The

Commonwealth projected an overall control efficiency of 20 percent for

architectural and industrial maintenance coatings.

In a memo dated March 22, 1995, EPA provided guidance on the

expected reductions from a pending national rulemaking on AIM coatings.

The memo projects that emissions would be reduced by 20 percent for

both architectural coatings and industrial maintenance coatings.

Massachusetts has claimed a similar amount of credit from its rule. The

20 percent emission reduction of 10 tpsd expected from this rule is

approvable.

C. On-Road Mobile Source Controls

(1) Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

On March 27, 1996, Massachusetts submitted a revised vehicle I/M

program pursuant to the National Highway Systems Designation Act

(NHSDA) of 1995. The Commonwealth's program includes provisions

requiring inspection and maintenance of heavy duty gasoline vehicles.

Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA requires that States containing ozone

nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above prepare plans that

provide for a 15 percent VOC emission reduction by November 15, 1996.

Most of the 15 percent SIPs originally submitted to the EPA contained

enhanced I/M programs because this program achieves more VOC emission

reductions than most, if not all other, control strategies. However,

because most States experienced substantial difficulties with these

enhanced I/M programs, only a few States are currently actually testing

cars using the original enhanced I/M protocol.

In September, 1995, the EPA finalized revisions to its enhanced I/M

rule allowing states significant flexibility in designing I/M programs

appropriate for their needs. Subsequently, Congress enacted the

National Highway Systems Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA), which

provides States with more flexibility in determining the design of

enhanced I/M programs. The substantial amount of time needed by States

to re-design enhanced I/M programs in accordance with the guidance

contained within the NHSDA, secure state legislative approval when

necessary, and set up the infrastructure to perform the testing program

has precluded States that revise their I/M programs from obtaining

emission reductions from such revised programs by November 15, 1996.

Given the heavy reliance by many States upon enhanced I/M programs

to help achieve the 15 percent VOC emission reduction required under

CAA section 182(b)(1), and the recent NHSDA and regulatory changes

regarding enhanced I/M programs, the EPA recognized that it is no

longer possible for many States to achieve the portion of the 15

percent reductions that are attributed to I/M by November 15, 1996.

Under these circumstances, disapproval of the 15 percent SIPs would

serve no purpose. Consequently, under certain circumstances, EPA will

propose to allow States that pursue re-design of enhanced I/M programs

to receive emission reduction credit from these programs within their

15 percent plans, even though the emission reductions from the I/M

program will occur after November 15, 1996.

Specifically, the EPA will propose approval of 15 percent SIPs if

the emission reductions from the revised, enhanced I/M programs, as

well as from the other 15 percent SIP measures, will achieve the 15%

level as soon after November 15, 1996 as practicable. To make this ``as

soon as practicable'' determination, the EPA must determine that the

SIP contains all VOC control strategies that are practicable for the

nonattainment area in question and that meaningfully accelerate the

date by which the 15 percent level is achieved. The EPA does not

believe that measures meaningfully accelerate the 15 percent date if

they provide only an insignificant amount of reductions.

In the case of the Springfield and the Massachusetts portion of the

Boston-Lawrence-Worcester serious nonattainment areas, Massachusetts

has submitted 15 percent SIPs that would achieve the amount of

reductions needed from I/M using an evaluation date of January, 2000.

Massachusetts has submitted 15 percent SIPs that achieve all other

reductions by November, 1996.

[[Page 37530]]

The EPA proposes to determine that these SIP revisions contain all

measures, including enhanced I/M, that achieve the required reductions

as soon as practicable.

The EPA proposes to determine that the I/M program for the

Springfield nonattainment area and the Massachusetts portion of the

Boston-Lawrence-Worcester area achieves reductions as soon as

practicable.

The EPA has examined other potentially available SIP measures to

determine if they are practicable for the two Massachusetts ozone

nonattainment areas, and if they would meaningfully accelerate the date

by which the area reaches the 15 percent level of reductions. The EPA

proposes to determine that these SIPs contain the appropriate measures.

The rationale for this determination is outlined within the technical

support document available in the docket for this action. In summary,

several area source measures exist which could conceivably be

implemented prior to November 1999. However, these measures would not

achieve the same level of emission reductions expected from the

Commonwealth's I/M program, and additionally, would not meaningfully

accelerate the achievement of the required reductions.

Massachusetts provided support documentation outlining the

derivation of emission reductions anticipated from the automobile I/M

program. The support documentation included a demonstration that the 15

percent reduction will be met assuming the Commonwealth's program

achieves emission reduction levels reflective of an I/M 240 type

program. Massachusetts also submitted a demonstration that the 15

percent reduction would be met assuming, more conservatively, that the

I/M program achieves emission reductions reflective of an acceleration

simulation mode type program. EPA has reviewed the Commonwealth's

calculations and finds the estimates acceptable. As stated in the rule

conditionally approving the I/M program in today's Federal Register,

the Commonwealth's assumptions about the level of emission reductions

from its I/M program are all consistent with commitments DEP has given

EPA about how it will implement that program. The ultimate issue of how

much emission reduction credit Massachusetts can claim for its I/M

program will be determined as part of the program evaluation provided

for under the National Highway Act, as described in EPA's conditional

interim approval of the I/M program in today's Federal Register.

(2) Reformulated Gasoline (RFG)

Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act requires that after January 1,

1995, reformulated gasoline be sold or dispensed in the nine

nonattainment areas with the highest ozone design value with a

population above 250,000. This gasoline is reformulated to burn cleaner

and produce fewer evaporative emissions. The Commonwealth of

Massachusetts was not subject to the CAA's reformulated gasoline

requirement. However, on August 14, 1991 a letter from Governor Weld

was submitted to EPA requesting that the Massachusetts serious ozone

nonattainment areas participate in the reformulated fuels program. This

request was published in the Federal Register on November 15, 1991, 56

FR 57986. The EPA enforces this program so the emission reductions are

fully enforceable. For purposes of its 15 percent ROP plans,

Massachusetts used the MOBILE5a model to calculate the emission

reductions due to the implementation of the reformulated gasoline

program.

(3) Tier I Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program

The EPA promulgated standards for 1994 and later model year light-

duty vehicles and light-duty trucks (56 FR 25724 (June 5, 1991)). Since

the standards were adopted after the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990,

the resulting emission reductions are creditable toward the 15 percent

reduction goal. For purposes of its 15 percent ROP plans, Massachusetts

calculated these reductions using the MOBILE5a model.

(4) California Low Emission Vehicle Program

Massachusetts has adopted a regulation requiring that all new 1995

and subsequent model year passenger cars and light duty trucks sold,

leased or registered in Massachusetts meet California's motor vehicle

emission standards. This regulation, found at 310 CMR 7.40, was adopted

by the Commonwealth in January 1992, and approved by EPA on February 1,

1995, (60 FR 6027). Massachusetts included the MOBILE5a runs in

Appendix B of its 15 percent ROP plan. The MOBILE5a runs done to

determine the emission reduction credit from the California Low

Emission Vehicle program indicate that the reductions were calculated

in accordance with EPA guidance.

(5) Stage II Vapor Recovery

Massachusetts has adopted and submitted to EPA a Stage II vapor

recovery regulation that will limit VOC emissions from this source

category. On November 13, 1992, Massachusetts submitted a formal

request to EPA to amend the Massachusetts SIP. This SIP revision

contained amendments to the Commonwealth's Stage II vapor recovery

rule, entitled ``Dispensing of Motor Vehicle Fuel'' located at 310 CMR

7.24(6), which are required to satisfy sections 182(b)(3) and 184(b)(2)

of the CAA. On February 17, 1993, Massachusetts submitted the adopted

version of the revised Stage II regulation along with additional

documentation regarding the effective date of this rule. EPA approved

this Stage II regulation as a revision to the Massachusetts SIP in a

Federal Register notice published on September 15, 1993, 58 FR 48315.

The Massachusetts 15 Percent ROP plans contain the MOBILE 5a runs done

to determine the emission reduction credit from the Stage II vapor

recovery program. These MOBILE 5a runs indicate that the reductions

were calculated in accordance with EPA guidance.

D. Non-Road Mobile Source Controls

Reformulated Gasoline in Non-Road Engines

On August 18, 1993, EPA's Office of Mobile Sources issued a

guidance memorandum regarding the VOC emission reduction benefits for

non-road equipment which are in a nonattainment area that uses Federal

Phase I reformulated gasoline. Massachusetts has correctly used the

guidance to determine that the VOC emission reductions from the use of

RFG in non-road engines will be approximately 6 tpsd statewide.

New Federal Non-Road Engine Standards

The revised 15 Percent ROP plan submitted by Massachusetts on

December 30, 1994, and further revised by a submittal made on March 31,

1997, contained emission reductions that will occur due to new federal

non-road engine standards. These emission reduction credits claimed are

consistent with guidance issued by EPA dated November 28, 1994, and

amount to a 7 tpsd reduction in VOC emissions across the State.

15 Percent ROP Plan Summary

Table 2 summarizes the emission reductions contained within the

Massachusetts 15 Percent ROP plans. Massachusetts allocated between the

two nonattainment areas the anticipated reductions from statewide

control measures using the same methodology

[[Page 37531]]

that determined the allocation of its 1990 base year inventory

emissions.

Table 2.--Summary of Emission Reductions: Massachusetts Serious Ozone

Nonattainment Areas (tons/day)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bos-Law-

Nonattainment area Springfield Wor

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Required Reduction............................... 34 176

Creditable Reductions:

Point Source VOC RACT.......................... 0 1

Automobile Refinishing......................... 2 11

Commercial and Consumer Products............... 1 6

AIM Coatings................................... 1 9

Reform, On-road

Auto Emissions Testing

Tier I

California LEV

Stage II:

Subtotal, On-Road Mobile Strategies............ 33 143

Reform, Off-road............................... 1 5

New Off-road Standards......................... 1 6

Total...................................... 39 181

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contingency Measures

Ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or above must

submit to the EPA, pursuant to sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the

CAA, contingency measures to be implemented if an area misses an ozone

SIP milestone or does not attain the national ambient air quality

standard by the applicable date. The General Preamble to Title I (57 FR

13498, (April 16, 1992)) states that the contingency measures should,

at a minimum, ensure that an appropriate level of emission reduction

progress continues to be made if attainment or RFP is not achieved and

additional planning by the State is needed. The EPA interprets these

provisions of the CAA to require States with serious and above ozone

nonattainment areas to submit sufficient contingency measures so that

upon implementation of such measures, additional emission reductions of

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 (57 FR at

13511). States must show that their contingency measures can be

implemented with minimal further action on their part and with no

additional rulemaking actions such as public hearings or legislative

review.

Analysis of Contingency Measures

The contingency plans submitted by Massachusetts indicate that the

Commonwealth, consistent with EPA guidance dated August 23, 1993, has

chosen to meet a part of its contingency measure obligation by using

NOX emission reductions. The 3 percent total contingency

measure reduction will consist of a 1.5 percent VOC reduction, and a

1.5 percent NOX reduction. As required by the EPA's

NOX substitution guidance, the 1.5 percent VOC reduction is

a reduction from the adjusted base year VOC inventory and the 1.5

percent NOX reduction is a reduction from the adjusted base

year NOX inventory. The calculation of the required

reductions is shown in the table below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adj. Inv. Adj. Inv. Conting. Conting.

Area (VOC) (NOX) (VOC) (NOX)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Springfield................................................. 147 105 2 2

Bos-Law-Wor................................................. 769 772 12 12

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Massachusetts made a minor error in determining the VOC contingency

obligations in that the values were derived from the adjusted inventory

which used January 2000 as the mobile source emission evaluation date.

The Commonwealth's calculations yielded a contingency obligation of 11

tpsd for the Bos-Law-Wor area instead of 12 tpsd. The appropriate

values are shown in the above table.

The Massachusetts contingency plans consist of a demonstration that

projected, controlled emissions in 1998 will be below the emission

target levels calculated for those years with the assumption that the

contingency measure obligation has been triggered. In other words, the

Commonwealth has shown that emission levels will have fallen 18 percent

in addition to the non-creditable reductions discussed previously in

this document. The rationale for this is based on the fact that if a

State fails to meet its 15 percent VOC emission reduction milestone and

therefore has to implement its contingency plan, the emission

reductions from the contingency measures must occur by May of 1998 (see

August 23, 1993 EPA guidance memorandum regarding contingency

measures.)

Additionally, the Commonwealth's SIP contains elements that achieve

emission reductions beyond those required by the CAA, and these

programs achieve emission reductions that satisfy the Commonwealth's

VOC and NOX emission reduction obligations. The non-CAA

mandatory programs cited by Massachusetts are VOC control regulations

adopted by the Commonwealth on consumer and commercial products,

autobody refinishing, and architectural and industrial maintenance

coatings, and for NOX, the Massachusetts NOX RACT

rule. Although the Commonwealth was required to adopt a NOX

RACT rule, the Massachusetts rule contains emission limits which are

more stringent than required. Pursuant to EPA guidance contained within

a November 8, 1993 memorandum from D. Kent Berry to the Regional Air

Directors, the increment of emission reductions generated due to the

more stringent limits of the Commonwealth's NOX RACT rule

can be considered to be non-CAA mandatory reductions.

The EPA Regional office performed an analysis of the emission

reductions generated by the Commonwealth's NOX RACT rule,

and determined that the rule achieves approximately 11 tpsd more

emission reductions than otherwise required due to its more stringent

limits. Although this amount is short of the 14 tpsd NOX

contingency obligation, the Commonwealth's demonstration that 1998

projected, controlled emission levels will be below 1998 target levels

that were calculated with the contingency obligation triggered reveals

a surplus emission reduction in both nonattainment areas. A summary of

the Commonwealth's contingency demonstration is provided below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Springfield VOC NOX

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1998 Target (Adj. for contingency).................. 116 100

1998 Projected, Controlled Emissions................ 112 98

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 37532]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boston-Lawrence-Worcester VOC NOX

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1998 Target (Adj. for contingency).................. 614 723

1998 Projected, Controlled Emissions................ 611 714

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The demonstration submitted by Massachusetts showed that projected,

controlled VOC and NOX emissions will be below target levels

for 1998 that were calculated with contingencies triggered.

Transportation Conformity Budgets

In recognition of the proposed approval of the 15 percent ROP plan,

EPA also proposes approval of motor vehicle emission budgets for VOCs.

Final approval of the 15 percent plan will eliminate the need for the

transportation conformity emission reduction tests, which are the

build/no build test and the less than 1990 emissions test, for VOCs.

These tests will still be required for NOX emissions, since

the 15 percent plan does not establish a NOX emission

budget.

A control strategy SIP is required to establish a motor vehicle

emission budget which places a cap on emissions that cannot be exceeded

by predicted highway and transit vehicle emissions. The Commonwealth of

Massachusetts did not provide a break down of the 1996 projected

inventory denoting transit emissions as an individual category.

Therefore EPA is proposing to utilize the on-road mobile emissions

provided in the SIP submittal as the motor vehicle emission budget for

transportation conformity purposes. The on-road mobile VOC emissions

are 137 tons per summer day, and 27 tons per summer day for the Eastern

and Western Ozone nonattainment areas respectively. EPA recommends that

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts submit a specific motor vehicle

emission budget for conformity purposes that includes both the highway

and transit components. If such a submittal is made, EPA will address

the revised motor vehicle budget within the final rulemaking on the

Commonwealth's 15 percent plan.

The 1996 VOC motor vehicle emission budgets for the two

nonattainment areas within Massachusetts are 137 tpsd for the

Massachusetts portion of the Bos-Law-Wor area, and 27 tpsd for the

Springfield area. EPA notes that the Commonwealth derived these

emission values using the assumption that the Massachusetts motor

vehicle I/M program will achieve emission reductions equivalent to the

reductions achievable from an enhanced I/M program. The validity of

that assumption will be reviewed when the Commonwealth submits to EPA

the required evaluation of its I/M program.

Proposed Action

The EPA has evaluated these submittals for consistency with the

CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. The Massachusetts 15 Percent ROP

plans will achieve enough reductions to meet the 15 percent ROP

requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the CAA. In addition, the

Massachusetts contingency plans will achieve enough emission reductions

to meet the three percent reduction requirement under sections

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the CAA. However, the ability of these plans

to achieve the indicated quantity of emission reductions depends in

large part on the successful implementation of an automobile emission

testing program. In the final rules section of today's Federal

Register, EPA is issuing a final interim conditional approval of the

Massachusetts automobile emission testing program. Therefore, the EPA

is proposing a conditional interim approval of the Massachusetts 15

Percent plans and Contingency plans submitted in final form on March

31, 1997, as a revision to the SIP.

EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this

proposal or on other relevant matters. These comments will be

considered before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may

participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written

comments to the EPA regional office listed in the ADDRESSES section of

this action.

EPA is proposing to grant conditional, interim approval of the

Massachusetts 15 percent and contingency plans. The outstanding issues

with these SIP revisions concern the ability of the Massachusetts

automobile emission testing program to achieve the level of emission

reductions anticipated. For this reason, EPA is proposing to grant

conditional, interim approval to these SIP revisions provided that the

Commonwealth complies with the conditions outlined in the final action

on the automobile emission testing program, which is being published in

the rules section of today's Federal Register.

Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA may conditionally approve a

plan based on a commitment from the State to adopt specific enforceable

measures by a date certain, but not later than 1 year from the date of

approval. If EPA conditionally approves the commitment in a final

rulemaking action, the State must meet its commitment as described in

the preceding paragraph. If the State fails to do so, this action will

become a limited approval, limited disapproval 1 year from the date of

final action on the Commonwealth's I/M program. EPA will notify the

State by letter that this action has occurred. At that time, this

commitment will no longer be a part of the approved Massachusetts SIP.

EPA subsequently will publish a document in the Federal Register

notifying the public that the conditional approval automatically

converted to a limited approval, limited disapproval. If the State

meets its commitment, within the applicable time frame, the

conditionally approved submission will remain a part of the SIP until

EPA takes final action approving or disapproving the Massachusetts I/M

program. If EPA disapproves the Massachusetts I/M program, the 15

percent and contingency plans will receive limited approvals, limited

disapprovals at that time. If EPA approves the Massachusetts I/M

program, the 15 percent and contingency plans will be fully approved in

their entirety and replace the conditionally approved program in the

SIP.

If EPA determines that it must issue a limited disapproval rather

than a final conditional approval, or if the conditional approval is

later converted to a limited approval, limited disapproval, such action

will trigger EPA's authority to impose sanctions under section 179(a)

of the CAA at the time EPA issues the final limited approval, limited

disapproval or on the date the Commonwealth fails to meet its

commitment. In the latter case, EPA will notify Massachusetts by letter

that the conditional approval has been converted to a limited approval,

limited disapproval and that EPA's sanctions authority has been

triggered. In addition, the final disapproval triggers the federal

implementation plan (FIP) requuirement under section 110(c).

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action 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 Executive Order 12866 review.

[[Page 37533]]

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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 sections 603

and 604). Alternatively, EPA may certify 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 government entities with jurisdiction over populations

of less than 50,000.

Conditional approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.

Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not impose any new

requirements, I certify 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 flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under

section 110(k), based on the Commonwealth's failure to meet the

commitment, it will not affect any existing state requirements

applicable to small entities. Federal disapproval of the state

submittal does not affect its state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's

disapproval of the submittal does not impose a new Federal requirement.

Therefore, EPA certifies that this disapproval action does not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it

does not remove existing requirements nor does it substitute a new

federal requirement.

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, 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. Under Section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the actions proposed in this notice do 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 proposes

approval of pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and

imposes no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs

to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Reporting and recordkeeping, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: June 13, 1997.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, EPA Region I.

[FR Doc. 97-18409 Filed 7-11-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P