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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-18409

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** July 14, 1997
- **Citation:** 62 FR 37527

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-18409. Public record. Not legal advice.