[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36320-36326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17546]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA 04-9-4028; FRL-5535-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; Disapproval of 15 Percent Reasonable-Further-Progress 
Plan for the Philadelphia Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove the State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (for the 
Philadelphia ozone nonattainment area) to meet the 15 percent 
reasonable further progress (RFP, or 15% plan), also known as rate-of-
progress (ROP) requirements of the Clean Air Act. EPA is proposing 
disapproval because the 15 percent plan submitted by Pennsylvania for 
the Philadelphia area assumes credit towards ROP for numerous control 
strategies which are either not fully adopted, are not creditable 
towards ROP under the Clean Air Act, or have not been adequately 
quantified. EPA cannot approve these reductions towards the 15% plan, 
thus causing a ``shortfall'' towards Pennsylvania's RFP demonstration. 
Therefore, the Commonwealth has not demonstrated sufficient reductions 
of volatile organic compounds (VOC) to meet the RFP requirements of the 
Clean Air Act. Finally, the 1990 emissions inventory estimates used in 
the 15% plan as the baseline for reasonable further progress differs 
substantially from Pennsylvania's separate 1990 base year emission 
inventory SIP submittal. Without justification of these differences, 
EPA cannot approve the revised inventory estimates.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be postmarked by September 
9, 1996..
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to Kathleen Henry, Acting 
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide, and Mobile Sources Section, Mailcode 
3AT21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--Region III, 841 Chestnut 
Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107. Copies of the documents 
relevant to this action are available for public inspection during 
normal business hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107. Persons interested in examining these 
documents should schedule an appointment with the contact person 
(listed below) at least 24 hours before the visiting day. Copies of the 
documents relevant to this action are also available at the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air 
Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 
17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian K. Rehn, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide 
and Mobile Sources Section (3AT21), USEPA--Region III, 841 Chestnut 
Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, or by telephone at: 
(215)566-2176. Questions may also be addressed via e-mail, at the 
following address: Rehn.B[email protected] [Please note that only 
written comments can be accepted for inclusion in the docket.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (the Act), as amended in 
1990, requires ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or 
above to develop plans to reduce VOC emissions by fifteen percent from 
the 1990 baseline inventory for the area. These ``15% plans'' were due 
to be submitted to EPA by November 15, 1993, with the reductions to 
occur within 6 years of enactment (i.e. November 15, 1996). 
Furthermore, the Clean Air Act sets limitations on the creditability of 
certain control measures towards reasonable further progress. 
Specifically, States cannot take credit for reductions achieved by 
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) measures (e.g. new car 
emissions standards) promulgated prior to 1990; or for reductions 
stemming from regulations promulgated prior to 1990 to lower the 
volatility (i.e., Reid Vapor Pressure) of gasoline. Furthermore, the 
Act does not allow credit towards RFP for post-1990 corrections to 
existing motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs or 
corrections to reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules, 
since these programs were required to be in-place prior to 1990. 
Additionally, section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act requires 
``contingency measures'' to be included in the plan revision. These 
measures are required to

[[Page 36321]]

be implemented immediately if reasonable further progress is not 
achieved, or if the NAAQS standard is not attained under the deadlines 
set forth in the Clean Air Act.
    In Pennsylvania, three nonattainment areas are subject to the Clean 
Air Act 15 Percent rate-of-progress requirements. These are the 
Philadelphia severe nonattainment area, the Pittsburgh moderate 
nonattainment area, and the Reading moderate nonattainment area. On 
July, 19, 1995, EPA published, in the Federal Register, a final rule 
waiving the 15% rate-of-progress requirements for the Pittsburgh and 
Reading moderate ozone nonattainment areas. The basis for that action 
was a May 10, 1995, EPA policy memo allowing such ``waivers'' for areas 
having ambient monitoring data which demonstrated compliance with the 
ozone standard. On June 4, 1996, EPA revoked the waiver for the 
Pittsburgh area, and reinstated the 15% plan requirement. Pennsylvania 
submitted separate SIP revisions for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The 
15% plan for the Philadelphia area (Philadelphia 15% plan) was 
submitted by Pennsylvania on November 15, 1994, and was re-submitted on 
January 18, 1995. The Philadelphia metropolitan area includes counties 
in New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, as well as Pennsylvania, all of 
which must demonstrate reasonable further progress. However, 
Pennsylvania is only responsible for achieving RFP within the 
Pennsylvania portion of that metropolitan area. The Commonwealth did 
not enter an agreement with the other states which comprise the metro 
Philadelphia area to do a multi-state 15% plan, and submitted only a 
plan to reduce Pennsylvania's contribution by fifteen percent. EPA is 
taking action today only on Pennsylvania's 15% plan submittal, which 
addresses only the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia 
metropolitan area. EPA will act separately on the Pittsburgh 15% plan, 
at a later date.
    EPA has reviewed the January 18, 1995 Philadelphia area 15% plan 
submittal and has identified several significant deficiencies, which 
prohibit approval of this SIP, per section 110 of the Clean Air Act. A 
detailed discussion of these deficiencies is included below, in the 
``Analysis'' portion of this rulemaking action, and also in the 
technical support document (TSD) for this action. Due to these 
deficiencies, the 15 percent plan, and the associated contingency 
measure plan, will not achieve the total reductions required by the 
rate-of-progress requirements of the Act. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
disapproval of the plan. This action in no way implies disapproval, or 
any other action, with respect to the individual control measures 
utilized in the 15% plan or the contingency plan.
    Today's action addresses only the approvability of measures towards 
the reasonable further progress requirement of the Act, and does not 
address whether the control measures or inventories included in the 15% 
plan comply with any specific underlying requirements of the Act. For 
further information regarding EPA's analysis of the Commonwealth's 
submittal, please refer to the TSD for this action (found in the 
official docket). A summary of the EPA's findings follows.

Analysis of the SIP Revision

Base Year Emission Inventory

    The baseline from which states must determine the required 
reductions for 15 percent planning is the 1990 base year emission 
inventory. The inventory is broken down into several emissions source 
categories: stationary, area, on-road mobile sources, and off-road 
mobile sources. Pennsylvania submitted a formal SIP revision containing 
their official 1990 base year emission inventory on November 12, 1992. 
EPA has not yet taken rulemaking action on that inventory submittal. 
There are significant differences between the source categories in the 
officially submitted 1990 base year inventory and those contained in 
the 1990 base year inventory in the Philadelphia 15% plan, although 
total VOC emissions do not substantially vary. The Commonwealth did not 
acknowledge the inconsistencies in the 15% plan inventory, nor did the 
Commonwealth attempt to substantiate these differences. Furthermore, 
the base year inventory in the 15% plan lacks sufficient detail for EPA 
to accept it as a replacement for the official 1990 base year inventory 
SIP revision. Nor has Pennsylvania requested EPA to do so. Refer to the 
TSD for a specific comparison of the inventories. EPA intends to 
conduct separate rulemaking action on Pennsylvania's 1990 inventory 
submittal, at a later date.

Growth in Emissions Between 1990 and 1996

    EPA has interpreted the Clean Air Act to require that reasonable 
further progress towards attainment of the ozone standard must be 
obtained after offsetting any growth expected to occur over that 
period. Therefore, to meet the 15% RFP requirement, a state must enact 
measures achieving sufficient emissions reductions to offset projected 
growth in emissions, in addition to a 15 percent reduction of VOC 
emissions. Thus, an estimate of emissions growth from 1990 to 1996 is 
necessary for demonstrating reasonable further progress. Growth is 
calculated by multiplying the 1990 base year inventory by acceptable 
forecasting indicators. Growth must be determined separately for each 
source, or by source category, since sources typically grow at 
different rates. EPA's inventory preparation guidance recommends the 
following indicators, in order of preference: product output, value 
added, earnings, and employment. Population can also serve as a 
surrogate indicator.
    Pennsylvania's 15% plan contains growth projections for point, 
area, on-road motor vehicle, and non-road vehicle source categories. 
For a detailed description of the growth methodologies used by the 
Commonwealth, please refer to the TSD for this action. In general, EPA 
approves the Commonwealth's 1990-1996 emissions growth projections, 
with one exception.
    EPA disagrees with the growth projections for the on-road vehicle 
category. The Commonwealth's 15% plan indicates that highway vehicle 
emissions growth is based on growth in total vehicle miles of travel 
(VMT) for the region, which the Commonwealth expects to increase by 7.7 
million miles per day, and that on-road emissions are projected to 
decrease by 11.9 tons/day. Since emissions from on-highway emissions 
control measures are calculated separately in the plan (including 
reductions associated with fleet turnover and the pre-1990 motor 
vehicle standards) and Pennsylvania indicates that this growth is based 
solely upon increasing VMT growth, it is unclear how motor vehicle 
emissions are declining. Therefore, EPA cannot approve the 
Commonwealth's on-road motor vehicle growth projection. Growth in 
highway emissions should be determined independently of mobile source 
control strategies. Additionally, the 15% plan should indicate what, if 
any, other factors effect highway emissions growth, other than the 
previously identified VMT influence.

Calculation of Target Level Emissions

    Pennsylvania calculated a ``target level'' of 1996 VOC emissions, 
per EPA guidance. First, the Commonwealth calculated the non-creditable 
reductions from the FMVCP program and subtracted those emissions from 
the 15 percent plans's 1990 inventory estimate. This yields the 1990 
``adjusted inventory''. The emission reduction required to meet the 15 
percent rate-of-progress requirement equals the sum of 15 percent of 
the adjusted inventory and

[[Page 36322]]

any reductions necessary to offset emissions growth projected to occur 
between 1990 and 1996, plus reductions that resulted from corrections 
to the I/M or VOC RACT rules that were required to be in-place before 
1990. Table 1 summarizes the calculations for the five-county 
Philadelphia area's 1 VOC target level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\  The five-county Philadelphia area is comprised of the 
following counties: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and 
Philadelphia.

    Table 1.--Calculation of Required Reductions for the Philadelphia   
                      Nonattainment Area's 15% Plan                     
                               [Tons/day]                               
1990 Base Year Emission Inventory [15% plan version]..........    629.27
Adjustments for FMVCP/RVP programs in-place (prior to 1990)...    -32.95
1990 Adjusted Inventory.......................................    596.32
15% of the 1990 Adjusted Inventory............................     89.45
Reductions from Previously Required RACT Rule Corrections.....      0.84
Projected 1990-1996 Emissions Growth..........................      8.12
1996 Target Level.............................................    506.03
1996 2 Projection Inventory...................................    637.39
Required Reduction............................................   131.36 
                                                                        
2 1996 forecast emissions (projected from 1990), reflecting only        
  emissions growth and in-place (or, pre-1990) controls.                

Control Strategies in the 15% Plan

    The specific measures adopted (either through state or federal 
rules) for the Philadelphia area are addressed, in detail, in the 
Commonwealth's 15% plan. The following is a brief description of each 
control measure Pennsylvania has claimed credit for in the submitted 
15% plan, as well as the results of EPA's review of the use of that 
strategy towards the Clean Air Act rate-of-progress requirement.

Creditable Emission Control Strategies

    The control measures described below are creditable towards the 
rate-of-progress requirements of the Act. However, the Commonwealth has 
in many cases failed to fully document the claimed reductions, 
particularly in the case of mobile source measures, which Pennsylvania 
estimates using a Post-Processor for Air Quality (PPAQ) computer model. 
This model uses MOBILE modeling information as input, and determines 
total reductions for mobile source control strategies. The Commonwealth 
provided no documentation from this modeling, with the exception of 
sample MOBILE input and output files and modeling assumptions which are 
used as input to the PPAQ. Therefore, for nearly every mobile source 
control strategy utilized, the 15% plan lacks detailed documentation to 
support the claimed reductions. EPA is not disapproving these measures, 
or the creditability of such measures. However, EPA cannot fully 
approve the reductions from the measures without additional 
documentation to verify the emissions estimates. For further details 
regarding EPA's review of the Commonwealth's control measures, please 
refer to EPA's TSD for this action, located in the docket.

Stage II Vapor Recovery

    This state-adopted regulation requires the installation and 
operation of vapor recovery equipment on gasoline dispensing pumps to 
reduce vehicle refueling emissions. The state regulation for this 
program is codified in 25 PA Code Sec. 129.75. EPA approved the 
Commonwealth's Stage II program on June 13, 1994 (59 FR 112). EPA 
supports the Commonwealth's use of this measure towards the rate-of-
progress requirement. However, EPA is unable to fully verify the 17.0 
tons/day credit estimate claimed by the Commonwealth for this program, 
due to a lack of detail regarding the methodology used to quantify 
Stage II reductions for the 15% plan.

Automobile Refinishing

    EPA is in the process of adopting a national rule to control VOC 
emissions from solvent evaporation through reformulation of coatings 
used in auto body refinishing processes. These coatings are typically 
used by small businesses, or by vehicle owners. VOC emissions emanate 
from the evaporation of solvents used in the coating process. 
Pennsylvania's 15% plan claims reductions from EPA's national rule.
    Use of emissions reductions from EPA's expected national rule is 
acceptable towards the 15% plan target. Pennsylvania claims a 35% 
reduction, or 6.8 tons/day from their 1996 projected uncontrolled 
autobody refinishing emissions. Due to inventory documentation 
deficiencies in the 15% plan, EPA cannot verify the claimed reduction.

Reformulated Gasoline

    Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act requires that, beginning 
January 1, 1995, only reformulated gasoline be sold or dispensed in 
ozone nonattainment areas classified as severe, or worse. This gasoline 
is reformulated to reduce combustion by-products and to produce fewer 
evaporative emissions. As a severe area, Philadelphia benefits from the 
emission reductions from this program. However, EPA again cannot verify 
the reductions from this program, based on the documentation provided 
by the Commonwealth in the 15% plan.

Transportation, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) Rule

    TSDFs are private facilities that manage dilute wastewater, 
organic/inorganic sludges, and organic/inorganic solids. Waste disposal 
can be done by various means including: incineration, treatment, or 
underground injection or landfilling. EPA promulgated a national rule 
on June 21, 1990 for the control of TSDF emissions. Pennsylvania claims 
an expected VOC reduction of 3.13 tons/day from this national rule. 
This measure is creditable towards the rate-of-progress requirements of 
the Act. However, due to conflicts between the 1990 base and 1996 
projected uncontrolled emissions from this emissions category, EPA 
cannot verify this claimed reduction.

Rule Effectiveness (RE) Improvements

    Rule effectiveness is a means of enhancing rule compliance or 
implementation by industrial sources, and is expressed as a percentage 
of total available reductions from a control measure. The default 
assumption level for rule effectiveness is 80%. Pennsylvania claims RE 
improvements from the 80% default level to a level of 90% in their 15% 
plan SIP revision for Philadelphia, based upon improvements to RACT 
regulations for twenty-nine facilities in the 5-county Philadelphia 
area. The applicable RACT rules pertain to surface coating operations 
(PA Code Sec. 129.52) and offset printing operations (PA Code 
Sec. 129.67).
    Pennsylvania followed EPA policy to quantify emissions reductions 
from specific RE improvements for two categories, in the absence of 
quantifiable compliance or emissions data. The RE measures Pennsylvania 
claims toward the 15% plan include facility improvements, as well as 
improved state oversight. Facility measures include: Improved operator 
training, better operation and maintenance of process equipment, 
improved source monitoring/reporting. State oversight improvements 
include: More inspector training, stringent compliance inspections of 
all RE improvement facilities. If the final facility inspections 
identify a shortfall from the projected RE emission improvements, 
Pennsylvania will utilize the ``surplus'' projected emissions 
reductions (i.e., the RE improvement from 90%-94%) to alleviate the 
shortfall. The state also claimed this four percent RE improvement as a 
contingency measure in the plan. In the event that these

[[Page 36323]]

contingency reductions are needed to satisfy the 15% reduction 
requirement, Pennsylvania must substitute another contingency measure 
in place of this RE measure. For EPA's detailed analysis of this 
measure, please refer to the appropriate section of the TSD for this 
action. RE improvements are creditable toward the 15% plan requirement 
of the Clean Air Act, and EPA supports Pennsylvania's emissions 
projections for this measure. Therefore, Pennsylvania's claimed RE 
improvements are approvable towards the 15% requirement of the Act.

Permanent VOC Source/Facility Shutdowns

    Several industrial VOC sources that were operational in 1990 (i.e. 
included in the base year inventory) have since shut down either 
processes or entire facilities. Pennsylvania has adopted a banking rule 
(25 Pa Code Sec. 127.208), which requires that sources wishing to bank 
emission reduction credits, or ERCs, must do so within one year of 
initiation of the shutdown. If not, the Commonwealth can claim credit 
for the reductions as permanent and enforceable emissions reductions.
    Pennsylvania's 15% plan claims partial credit for shutdowns for 
which the source ``banked'' emissions reductions, and the Commonwealth 
claimed the entire shutdown credit for sources that did not bank their 
emissions within the one year deadline set forth in Pennsylvania's 
banking rule. The 15% plan reflects shutdowns from twenty-one VOC 
sources in the Philadelphia nonattainment area. These credits are 
ineligible for use as future ERCs, or to offset emissions from new 
sources under the Commonwealth's new source review regulation.
    Reductions from this measure are both permanent and enforceable, 
since the shutdowns are reflected in RACT permit conditions for the 
facility. EPA is approving the use of these reductions.

Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings (AIM)

    Emission reductions have been projected for AIM coatings due to the 
expected promulgation by the EPA of a national rule. In a memo dated 
March 22, 1995, EPA allowed states to claim a 20% reduction of total 
AIM emissions from the national rule. Pennsylvania claimed a 15% 
reduction in AIM emissions under its 15% plan. However, due to 
deficiencies in the documentation of this portion of the underlying 
emissions inventory, EPA cannot verify the claimed reduction.

Tier I Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program

    EPA promulgated a national rule establishing ``new car'' standards 
for 1994 and newer model year light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks 
on June 5, 1991 (56 FR 25724). Since the standards were adopted after 
the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990, the resulting emission 
reductions are creditable toward the 15 percent reduction goal. The EPA 
agrees with the State's projected emission reductions. Due to the 
three-year phase-in period for this program, and the associated 
benefits stemming from fleet turnover, the reductions prior to 1996 are 
somewhat limited. Pennsylvania claimed a reduction of 4.5 tons/day from 
this post-1990 Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program. As with other on-
highway mobile source control measures, the reductions from this 
program cannot be verified without further information.

Off-Road Use of Reformulated Gasoline

    The use of reformulated gasoline will also result in reduced 
emissions from off-road engines such as outboard motors for boats and 
lawn mower engines. The EPA agrees with the 0.59 ton/day reduction 
projected in the 15% plan for off-road engines utilizing reformulated 
gasoline.

Non-creditable Emissions Control Measures

    The following control measure is not creditable towards meeting the 
rate-of-progress requirements of the Clean Air Act. This measure, as it 
is described in the submitted 15% plan, is no longer in-place. 
Therefore, the emission reduction projected for this program is 
invalid.

Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program

    The I/M program described in the Commonwealth's 15% plan is a 
contractor-operated, centralized, IM240 inspection program. This 
program was conditionally approved by EPA in August of 1994. However, 
since that time, Pennsylvania suspended operation of this program, 
terminated the test inspector contract, and began the rule adoption 
process for a decentralized program as a replacement for the 
centralized program. Pennsylvania submitted a new I/M program SIP to 
EPA, under authority provided by the National Highway Systems 
Designation Act of 1995, on March 22, 1996. However, Pennsylvania has 
not revised the 15% plan for Philadelphia to reflect differences in the 
I/M program description and projected emissions reductions.

Reasonable Further Progress Shortfall

    Table 2 summarizes the proposed creditable and non-creditable 
reductions from Pennsylvania's 15% plan for the Philadelphia area. 
While the reductions listed as ``creditable'' in this table can be used 
to satisfy the Clean Air Act's reasonable further progress 
requirements, the measures in many cases are not approvable because of 
deficiencies related to quantification, lack of detailed emission 
inventory information, and documentation deficiencies (particularly 
related to mobile source control strategies).

  Summary of Creditable and Non-creditable Emission Reductions for the  
                  Philadelphia Ozone Nonattainment Area                 
                               [Tons/day]                               
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
Required Reduction for the Philadelphia area...................   131.36
Creditable Reductions                                                   
    Stage II 1.................................................   117.02
    FMVCP (Tier I) 1...........................................     4.51
    Auto Refinishing 1.........................................     6.79
    Rule Effectiveness Improvements (80%-90%)..................    21.55
    Reformulated Gasoline--Highway 1...........................         
        Non-road vehicle use of RFG \1\........................     0.59
    Industrial Facility Shutdowns..............................     3.24
    AIM Coatings Rules \1\.....................................     5.96
    TSDF Controls \1\..........................................     3.13
                                                                --------
      Total....................................................    85.85
                                                                ========
Reductions not Approvable: Inspection & Maintenance Program \1\    45.64
                                                                --------
      Total not approved.......................................    45.64
                                                                --------
Shortfall (from target level)..................................   45.51 
                                                                        
1 Pennsylvania's claimed reduction. This estimate cannot be verified    
  based on the supporting documentation (e.g. supporting modeling,      
  sample calculations, base year inventory references, etc.) For        
  specific deficiencies related to an individual category, refer to the 
  applicable portion of section III of EPA's technical support document 
  entitled ``Evaluation of the Commonwealth's 15% Plan Control          
  Measures'', located in the official docket for this action.           

Contingency Measures

    Per section 172(c)(9) of the Act, for ozone nonattainment areas 
classified as moderate or above, states must include contingency 
measures in their 15% plan submittals. These are measures which are to 
be immediately implemented if reasonable further progress (RFP) is not 
achieved, or if the areas do not attain the NAAQS standard by the 
applicable date mandated by the Act. EPA's interpretation of this Clean 
Air Act requirement is set forth in The General Preamble to Title I (57 
FR 13498), which requires that the contingency measures should, at a 
minimum, ensure that emissions reductions continue to be made if RFP 
(or attainment) is not

[[Page 36324]]

achieved in a timely manner, and additional planning by the state is 
needed. EPA interprets the Act to require States with moderate and 
above ozone nonattainment areas to include sufficient contingency 
measures in the 15% plan SIP submittal, such that upon implementation 
of those measures, additional emissions reductions of up to three 
percent of the adjusted base year inventory (or a lesser percentage 
that will make up the identified shortfall) would be achieved in the 
year after the failure has been identified. States must show that their 
contingency measures can be implemented with minimal further action on 
their part, and with no additional rulemaking actions (e.g. public 
hearings, legislative review, etc.). EPA has further interpreted the 
Act to allow states to substitute NOx control measures to achieve 
a portion of the required contingency measure reductions.

Analysis of Specific Contingency Measures

    The following is a discussion of each of the contingency measures 
that have been included in the SIP submittals and an analysis of their 
approvability.

VOC Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

    The CAA requires states to adopt regulatory programs mandating RACT 
control strategies for major sources located in ozone nonattainment 
areas. Since Philadelphia is a severe ozone nonattainment area, the CAA 
threshold for major sources is 25 tons/year. Pennsylvania determined 
reductions from certain classes of major source complying with RACT (on 
a case-by-case basis) within the Philadelphia area, and claimed a 1.02 
ton/day reduction from VOC RACT, for use as a contingency measure. 
However, EPA interprets the Act to prohibit the use of mandatory 
measures (i.e. those specified under the Clean Air Act for an 
applicable nonattainment area) as contingency measures, unless such a 
measure is in place to reduce another pollutant, and additionally 
provides VOC or NOx reductions. Therefore, Pennsylvania's VOC RACT 
reduction is not creditable as a contingency measure, since VOC RACT is 
required to be implemented, prior to 1996, under section 182 of the 
Act.

Employee Commute Options Program

    The Clean Air Act required severe nonattainment areas to adopt an 
employee trip reduction (ETR) program, providing a 25% reduction in 
average vehicle occupancy levels during the summer morning ``rush 
hour'' period. In a letter of February 27, 1995 from Pennsylvania 
Governor Tom Ridge, Pennsylvania announced the suspension of 
implementation and enforcement of the Commonwealth's adopted ETR 
program. However, the Commonwealth has not removed the ETR regulation 
from the Pennsylvania Code of Regulations, but has encouraged voluntary 
``trip reduction'' efforts. Since then, Congress has removed the 
requirement for this program and EPA has issued guidance interpreting 
Congress's revised legislation. This guidance indicates that ETR need 
not be implemented if a state undertakes additional measures to make up 
the ``emissions shortfall'' caused by suspension of the program.
    Pennsylvania's 15% plan SIP claims credit for early implementation 
of ETR as a contingency measure, based on the assumption that the 
program would be implemented in 1996 and would achieve the predicted 
emissions benefits at that time. The 15% plan claims ``full'' credit 
for the program, not accounting for its voluntary nature. EPA cannot 
approve the Commonwealth's ETR program, as claimed within the 15% plan. 
However, this measure would be approvable if the Commonwealth amended 
the 15% plan to provide for reimplementation of the ETR regulation to 
require a future mandatory ETR program.

NOx Source/Process Shutdowns

    Pennsylvania is claiming credit, as a contingency measure, for 
emissions reductions credits from four facilities that banked emissions 
reduction credits from permanent NOx process shutdowns, under the 
state's banking rule. These shutdowns occurred after 1990, but before 
1996. Pennsylvania's banking regulation is found at 25 Pa. Code 
Sec. 127.210. The sources for which the Commonwealth claims contingency 
measure credit include: U.S. Steel--Fairless Hills, Martin Marietta 
Astro Space, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, and Marck Co., Inc.
    These reductions are permanent, since the shutdowns are to be 
reflected as RACT permit conditions in the facilities' revised permits. 
EPA interprets section 182(b)(1) of the Act to require that for the 
period from 1990 to 1996, only VOC reductions are creditable towards 
the 15% plan requirement. Furthermore, any contingency measure 
implemented early (i.e., before 1997) must also be a VOC measure, in 
order to be creditable as a contingency measure for failure to reach 
the 15% RFP milestone. Since the claimed shutdowns are NOx 
reductions that occurred prior to 1996, the reductions are not 
approvable as a contingency measure to meet the reasonable further 
progress requirements of the Clean Air Act. Additionally, in order for 
a NOx measure to be creditable as a contingency measure (i.e. 
reductions occur after 1996), the state must demonstrate that total 
NOx reduction from all combined NOx control strategies does 
not exceed 2.7% of the adjusted 1990 base year NOx inventory. 
Pennsylvania did not submit a 1990 baseline NOx inventory, nor 
attempt to make the above demonstration.

Improved Rule Effectiveness (90%-94% Level)

    Pennsylvania credits rule effectiveness (RE) improvements from the 
80% default level to a level of 90% toward the 15% plan SIP obligation. 
However, the Commonwealth maintains that the actual RE improvement is 
94%, and is utilizing the improvements from the 90% to 94% level as a 
contingency measure. These RE improvements are obtained from VOC RACT 
regulations (for the Philadelphia area) pertaining to two categories--
surface coating operations (PA Code Sec. 129.52) and offset printing 
operations (PA Code Sec. 129.67). Table 5.2 of the 15% plan lists those 
facilities from which the Commonwealth assumes increased RE credits. 
These are the same facilities listed for RE improvements towards the 
15% rate-of-progress plan. If the Commonwealth identifies a shortfall 
in their rule effectiveness claim (the 80-90% level) in the 15% plan, 
then the Commonwealth will utilize the reductions from the 90-94% RE 
level to make up a shortfall in their 15% plan. In that event, another 
contingency measure must be adopted to make up any shortfall thereby 
created in the Commonwealth's contingency measure portion of the SIP. 
EPA approves Pennsylvania's use of this measure, and the credits 
claimed for its use as a contingency measure. The reductions occurring 
from this measure will be in place prior to 1996, the earliest time by 
which reductions for a contingency measure would be needed. However, 
EPA has issued policy allowing states to implement contingency measures 
early (without penalty), assuming that such a measure is not a 
mandatory Part D requirement under the Act.

Consumer and Commercial Products Reformulation

    Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act required EPA to conduct a study 
of VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products and to compile a 
regulatory priority list. EPA is then

[[Page 36325]]

required to regulate those categories that account for 80% of the 
consumer product emissions in ozone nonattainment areas. Group I of 
EPA's regulatory schedule lists 24 categories of consumer products to 
be regulated by national rule, including personal, household, and 
automotive products. EPA intends to issue a final rule covering these 
products in the near future. EPA policy allows states to claim up to a 
20% reduction of total consumer product emissions towards the 
reasonable further progress requirement. Pennsylvania determined 
reductions from implementation of this national rule, but claimed 
credit for the program as a contingency measure. However, EPA has 
interpreted the Clean Air Act to disallow the use of mandatory 
measures, i.e. those required by the Act to be implemented in an ozone 
nonattainment area, as contingency measures. Therefore, for the same 
reason that Pennsylvania cannot utilize VOC RACT as a contingency 
measure, the state cannot use the consumer products national rule as a 
contingency measure.

Highway Marking Paints

    This measure requires, through a memorandum of understanding with 
the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), a conversion 
from solvent-based to low- or non-VOC paints when painting traffic 
lines on highway surfaces in the Philadelphia area. EPA considers 
highway paints as a subset of the AIM coating emissions category, for 
which Pennsylvania has already claimed emissions reduction in the 15% 
plan. However, Pennsylvania claims that highway markings are a 
separately inventoried category. PennDOT estimates for traffic line 
painting VOC emissions are based on the solvent formulation and usage 
estimates based on population, and assume a total annual reduction of 
58%-73%, compared to solvent-based paints. Pennsylvania claims a VOC 
reduction in 1996 of 1.56 tons/day. The 15% plan SIP revision does not 
indicate whether Pennsylvania has executed a memorandum of 
understanding, the implementation mechanism for this program. This 
contingency measure involves product reformulations, which are 
presently commercially available, and utilizes a non-regulatory, yet 
binding, mechanism for the state to require this measure. EPA assumes 
that this measure could be enacted within 60 days of the Commonwealth's 
failure to achieve the RFP requirements of the Clean Air Act, and is 
therefore an approvable contingency measure.

   Table 3.--Summary of Contingency Measures and Associated Reductions  
           (tons/day) for the Philadelphia Nonattainment Area           
Required Contingency...........................................    17.88
                                                                ========
Creditable Reductions:                                                  
    Traffic Line Paint Reformulation...........................     1.56
    Rule Effectiveness Improvement (90%94%)...........     8.63
                                                                --------
        Total Creditable Reductions............................    10.19
                                                                ========
Reductions not Creditable:                                              
    VOC RACT reductions........................................     1.02
    Consumer/Commercial Products (National Rule)...............     6.68
    NOX Source/Facility Shutdowns (post-1990)..................  \1\ 1.4
                                                                       6
    Employer Trip Reduction Program............................     0.93
                                                                --------
        Total non-creditable reductions........................    10.09
                                                                ========
        Shortfall..............................................    7.69 
                                                                        
\1\ NOX reduction is listed as a VOC equivalent reduction, based on a   
  NOX/VOC conversion factor (see discussion of measure in the TSD).     

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA has evaluated this submittal for consistency with the Clean 
Air Act, applicable EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Pennsylvania's 15 
percent plan for Philadelphia will not achieve sufficient reductions to 
meet the 15 percent rate-of-progress requirements of section 182(b)(1) 
of the Act. In addition, the contingency plans in these SIP submittals 
would not achieve sufficient emission reductions to meet the three 
percent reduction requirement, under 172(c)(9) of the Act. 
Additionally, there are measures included in the plan, which are 
creditable towards the Act requirement, but which are insufficiently 
documented to qualify for Clean Air Act approval. EPA has not included 
these measures as part of the 15% plan or contingency measure 
shortfall, although the reductions from these measures are not fully 
approvable towards the RFP requirement. Finally, the baseline 1990 
emissions inventory contained in the Commonwealth's 15% plan varies 
from the state's officially submitted 1990 emissions inventory SIP 
revision, without justification or documentation.
    In light of the above deficiencies, EPA is proposing to disapprove 
this SIP revision under section 110(k)(3) and section 301(a) of the 
Act. The submittal does not satisfy the requirements of section 
182(b)(1) of the Act regarding the 15 percent reasonable further 
progress plan, nor the requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the Clean 
Air Act regarding contingency measures.
    EPA is aware that Pennsylvania is currently revising the 15% plan, 
which the Commonwealth intends to submit in the near future. Since 
Congress passed the National Highway Systems Designation Act of 1995, 
which amended federal I/M program requirements and granted states 
authority to revise their I/M programs, and Pennsylvania has utilized 
that authority to revise its I/M program, revision of the 15% plan to 
reflect the I/M program changes is expected. When the Commonwealth 
submits a revised 15% plan, EPA expects they will withdraw the SIP 
revision which is the subject of today's action. Upon receipt of the 
revised 15% plan submittal, EPA will undertake a separate review of 
that plan for compliance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. If 
the deficiencies cited in today's action are remedied by the revised 
submittal, EPA will withdraw this proposed disapproval and propose 
approval of that submittal.
    Nothing in today's action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to 
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    EPA's proposed disapproval of the State request under section 110 
and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any 
existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing 
federal requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal 
disapproval of the state submittal does not affect its state-
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not 
impose any new federal requirement. Therefore, EPA certifies that this 
proposed disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove 
existing

[[Page 36326]]

requirements and impose any new federal requirements.
    Under section 179(a)(2), if the EPA Administrator takes final 
disapproval action on a submission under section 110(k) for an area 
designated nonattainment based on the submission's failure to meet one 
or more of the elements required by the Act, the Administrator must 
apply one of the sanctions set forth in section 179(b) of the Act 
(unless the deficiency has been corrected within 18 months of such 
disapproval). Section 179(b) provides two sanctions available to the 
Administrator: revocation of highway funding and the imposition of 
emission offset requirements. The 18-month period referred to in 
section 179(a) will begin on the effective date established in the 
final disapproval action. If the deficiency is not corrected within 6 
months of the imposition of the first sanction, the second sanction 
will apply. This sanctions process is set forth in 40 CFR 52.31. 
Today's action serves only to propose disapproval of the Commonwealth's 
SIP revision, and does not constitute final agency action. Thus, the 
sanctions process described above does not commence with today's 
action.
    Also, 40 CFR 51.448(b) of the federal transportation conformity 
rules (40 CFR 51.448(b)) state that if the EPA disapproves a submitted 
control strategy implementation plan revision which initiates the 
sanction process under Act section 179, the conformity status of the 
transportation plan and transportation improvement plan shall lapse 120 
days after the EPA's disapproval.
    Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act 
(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting 
Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register. 
This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of the 
APA as amended.
    This disapproval action for the Pennsylvania 15% plan for 
Philadelphia has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature by 
the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
    The Regional Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the 
SIP revision will be based on whether it meets the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(A)-(K) and part D of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 
and EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental regulations, Reporting and recordkeeping, Ozone, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 1, 1996.
W. T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-17546 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P