[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43973-43976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21692]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[MA-46-1-7194a; A-1-FRL-5552-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Massachusetts; Marine Vessel Transfer Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is conditionally approving a State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This 
revision contains a regulation to reduce volatile organic compound 
(VOC) emissions from marine vessel loading operations. The intended 
effect of this action is to conditionally approve this regulation into 
the Massachusetts SIP. This action is being taken in accordance with 
the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This action will become effective October 28, 1996, unless 
notice is received by September 26, 1996, that adverse or critical 
comments will be submitted. If the effective date is delayed, timely 
notice will be published in the Federal Register.


[[Page 43974]]


ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Deputy Director, 
Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region I, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203. Copies of the 
documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection 
during normal business hours, by appointment at the Office of Ecosystem 
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, One 
Congress Street, 11th Floor, Boston, MA; Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, 
SW. (LE-131), Washington, D.C. 20460; and the Division of Air Quality 
Control, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental 
Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne E. Arnold, (617) 565-3166.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 11, 1995, the Massachusetts 
Department of Environmental Protection submitted a formal State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal containing a new regulation 310 CMR 
7.24(8) ``Marine Volatile Organic Liquid Transfer'' as well as 
amendments to 310 CMR 7.00 ``Definitions.'' These regulations had been 
recently adopted pursuant to the reasonable further progress 
requirements and the volatile organic compound reasonable available 
control technology (VOC RACT) requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
[Sections 182(b)(1) and 182(b)(2)(C)]. In addition, on March 25, 1995, 
DEP submitted additional documentation indicating that these 
regulations became effective on January 27, 1995.

Background

    Under the pre-amended Clean Air Act (i.e., the Clean Air Act before 
the enactment of the amendments of November 15, 1990), ozone 
nonattainment areas were required to adopt RACT rules for sources of 
VOC emissions. EPA issued three sets of control technique guideline 
(CTG) documents, establishing a ``presumptive norm'' for RACT for 
various categories of VOC sources. The three sets of CTGs were: (1) 
Group I--issued before January 1978 (15 CTGs); (2) Group II--issued in 
1978 (9 CTGs); and (3) Group III--issued in the early 1980's (5 CTGs). 
Those sources not covered by a CTG were called non-CTG sources. EPA 
determined that the area's SIP-approved attainment date established 
which RACT rules the area needed to adopt and implement. Under Section 
172(a)(1), ozone nonattainment areas were generally required to attain 
the ozone standard by December 31, 1982. Those areas that submitted an 
attainment demonstration projecting attainment by that date were 
required to adopt RACT for sources covered by the Group I and II CTGs. 
Those areas that sought an extension of the attainment date under 
Section 172(a)(2) to as late as December 31, 1987 were required to 
adopt RACT for all CTG sources and for all major (i.e., 100 ton per 
year or more of VOC emissions) non-CTG sources.
    On November 15, 1990, amendments to the Clean Air Act were enacted. 
Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. Secs. 7401-
7671q. Pursuant to the 1990 Amendments, all of Massachusetts was 
classified as serious nonattainment for ozone (56 FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 
1991)).
    Section 182(b)(2) of the amended Act requires States to adopt RACT 
rules for all areas designated nonattainment for ozone and classified 
as moderate or above. There are three parts to the Section 182(b)(2) 
RACT requirement: (1) RACT for sources covered by an existing CTG--
i.e., a CTG issued prior to the enactment of the 1990 amendments to the 
Act; (2) RACT for sources covered by a post-enactment CTG; and (3) all 
major sources not covered by a CTG, i.e., non-CTG sources. Also, under 
Section 182(c) of the Act, the major source definition for serious 
nonattainment areas was lowered to include sources that have a 
potential to emit 50 tons or greater of VOCs per year.
    In response to the Act's requirement to regulate major non-CTG VOC 
sources, Massachusetts adopted 310 CMR 7.24(8) ``Marine Vessel Transfer 
Operations'' and submitted this rule to EPA as a SIP revision on 
January 11, 1995. Massachusetts' marine vessel rule is briefly 
summarized below.

310 CMR 7.24(8)  ``Marine Vessel Transfer Operations''

    This regulation contains requirements for reducing VOC emissions 
from loading events in which organic liquid is loaded onto marine tank 
vessels or in which any liquid is loaded into a marine tank vessel 
which previously held an organic liquid. Massachusetts' rule prohibits 
a loading event to occur unless:
    (1) marine tank vessel VOC emissions are limited to 2 lbs per 1,000 
bbls of organic liquid transferred; or
    (2) marine tank vessel VOC emissions are reduced at least 95 
percent by weight from uncontrolled conditions when using a recovery 
device or at least 98 percent by weight from uncontrolled conditions 
when using a combustion device.
    This regulation also limits the loading of marine tank vessels to 
those vessels that are vapor tight.
    Massachusetts' marine vessel rule will reduce VOC emissions. VOCs 
contribute to the production of ground level ozone and smog. This 
regulation was adopted as part of an effort to achieve the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. The following is EPA's 
evaluation of 310 CMR 7.24(8).

EPA's Evaluation of Massachusetts' Submittal

    In determining the approvability of a VOC rule, EPA must evaluate 
the rule for consistency with the requirements of the Act and EPA 
regulations, as found in Section 110 and Part D of the Act and 40 CFR 
Part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans). EPA's interpretation of these requirements, 
which forms the basis for today's action, appears in various EPA policy 
guidance documents. The specific guidance relied on for this action is 
referenced within the technical support document and this notice. For 
the purpose of assisting State and local agencies in developing RACT 
rules, EPA prepared a series of CTG documents. The CTGs are based on 
the underlying requirements of the Act and specify presumptive norms 
for RACT for specific source categories. EPA has not yet developed CTGs 
to cover all sources of VOC emissions. Further interpretations of EPA 
policy are found in, but not limited to, the following: (1) the 
proposed Post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy, 52 FR 45044 
(November 24, 1987); (2) the document entitled, ``Issues Relating to 
VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarification 
to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register Notice,'' otherwise 
known as the ``Blue Book'' (notice of availability was published in the 
Federal Register on May 25, 1988); and (3) the ``Model Volatile Organic 
Compound Rules for Reasonably Available Control Technology,'' (Model 
VOC RACT Rules) issued as a staff working draft in June of 1992. In 
general, these guidance documents have been set forth to ensure that 
VOC rules are fully enforceable and strengthen or maintain the SIP.
    In addition, Section 183(f) of the amended Act specifically 
requires EPA to promulgate RACT standards to reduce VOC emissions from 
the loading and unloading of marine tank vessels. Furthermore, on 
November 12, 1993 (58 FR 60021), marine vessels were added to the list 
of those categories for which EPA will promulgate a maximum achievable 
control technology (MACT) standard. On September 19, 1995 (60 FR

[[Page 43975]]

48388), EPA promulgated both RACT and MACT standards for marine tank 
vessels.
    EPA has evaluated Massachusetts' marine vessel rule and has found 
that it is generally consistent with EPA's national marine vessel rule 
and current EPA guidance. There are, however, two outstanding issues 
associated with the Commonwealth's regulation.

Outstanding Issues

1. Lack of Monitoring Requirements
    Massachusetts' regulation requires that, upon initial startup of 
the control equipment, the owner or operator of a marine terminal 
conduct an initial performance test in order to demonstrate compliance. 
However, as was stated in EPA's public hearing comments on 
Massachusetts' proposed version of this rule, the regulation should 
also require the facility to demonstrate continued compliance as is 
required under EPA's national marine vessel rule (40 CFR Sec. 63.564). 
Specifically, the regulation should require that certain parameters be 
monitored continuously while marine vessel loading or ballasting 
operations are occurring and that records be kept of all measurements 
needed to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standard including 
all data collected in any periods of operation during which the 
previously established parameter boundaries are exceeded.
2. Emission Limits for Ballasting Operations
    Massachusetts' marine vessel rule applies to the loading of an 
organic liquid and to ballasting operations. However, the emissions 
limitations stated in Section 7.24(8)(c)(1) of the rule only apply to 
``loading events.'' This term, as defined in 310 CMR 7.00, does not 
include ballasting operations. Although Sections 7.24(8)(c)(2) and 
7.24(8)(d) of Massachusetts' marine vessel rule do require control 
equipment to be used during ballasting, these sections do not require 
specific emission limitations to be met during ballasting operations.
    EPA's national marine vessel rule does not apply to ballasting 
operations. The absence of emission limitations for ballasting 
operations in Massachusetts' rule, however, is inconsistent with the 
information contained in Massachusetts' reasonable further progress 
(RFP) plan regarding the reduction in VOC emissions that is expected to 
result from the implementation of this rule. Specifically, 
Massachusetts' 1990 base year inventory shows that uncontrolled marine 
vessel transfer operations result in 3.2 tons of VOC per summer day 
(tpsd), which includes 2.8 tpsd from ballasting and 0.4 tpsd from 
loading operations. Massachusetts' marine vessel rule SIP submittal 
states that ballasting emissions will be reduced by 2.1 tpsd. This 
statement assumes that ballasting operations are subject to a 95 
percent control efficiency requirement (i.e., 0.95 control efficiency x 
0.8 rule effectiveness x 2.8 tpsd uncontrolled = 2.1 tpsd reduction). 
Therefore, Massachusetts' marine vessel rule should require that 
ballasting operations be subject to the emission limitations stated in 
Section 7.24(8)(c)(1)(B) of the rule.
    Massachusetts' regulation and EPA's evaluation are detailed in a 
memorandum, dated April 23, 1996, entitled ``Technical Support 
Document--Massachusetts--Marine Vessel Rule.'' Copies of that document 
are available, upon request, from the EPA Regional Office listed in the 
ADDRESSES section of this notice.
    EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal and 
anticipates no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in 
this Federal Register publication, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP 
revision should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will 
be effective October 28, 1996, unless adverse or critical comments are 
received by September 26, 1996.
    If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn 
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent notice that will 
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a 
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on 
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should 
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is 
advised that this action will be effective on October 28, 1996.

Final Action

    EPA is conditionally approving 310 CMR 7.24(8) ``Marine Vessel 
Transfer Operations'' and the associated 310 CMR 7.00 ``Definitions'' 
into the Massachusetts SIP.
    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. On February 1, 1996, Massachusetts submitted a written 
commitment to address the issues outlined above (i.e., the lack of 
monitoring requirements and the lack of emission limits for ballasting 
operations) within one year of the date of publication of EPA's 
conditional approval. If the Commonwealth fails to do so, this approval 
will become a disapproval on October 28, 1997. EPA will notify the 
Commonwealth by letter that this action has occurred. At that time, the 
conditionally approved submittal will no longer be a part of the 
approved Massachusetts SIP. EPA subsequently will publish a notice in 
the notice section of the Federal Register notifying the public that 
the conditional approval automatically converted to a disapproval. If 
the Commonwealth 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 new 
submittal. If EPA disapproves the new submittal, the conditionally 
approved submittal will also be disapproved at that time. If EPA 
approves the new submittal, the newly submitted regulations will be 
fully approved and will replace the conditionally approved regulations 
in the SIP.
    If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval, such 
action will trigger EPA's authority to impose sanctions under Section 
110(m) of the CAA at the time EPA issues the final disapproval or on 
the date the Commonwealth fails to meet its commitment. In the latter 
case, EPA will notify the Commonwealth by letter that the conditional 
approval has been converted to a disapproval and that EPA's sanctions 
authority has been triggered. In addition, the final disapproval 
triggers the federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under 
Section 110(c).
    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. Secs. 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.
    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.

[[Page 43976]]

Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-State relationship under the 
CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute 
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The 
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. 
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S. Ct. 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 State requirements nor does it substitute a 
new federal requirement.
    Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed 
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in 
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to 
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
    Through submission of this State Implementation Plan revision, the 
State and any affected local or tribal governments have elected to 
adopt the program provided for under Sections 182(b) of the Clean Air 
Act. These rules may bind State, local and tribal governments to 
perform certain actions and also require the private sector to perform 
certain duties. To the extent that the rules being approved by this 
action will impose no new requirements; such sources are already 
subject to these regulations under State law. Accordingly, no 
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the 
private sector, result from this action. EPA has also determined that 
this final action does not include a mandate that may result in 
estimated costs of $100 million or more to State, local, or tribal 
governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added 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 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).
    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 review under Executive Order 
12866.
    Nothing in this 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 Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 28, 1996. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)

    Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation 
Plan for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Ozone.

    Dated: July 22, 1996.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region I.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart W--Massachusetts

    2. Section 52.1119 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.1119  Identification of plan-conditional approval.

* * * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the 
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on January 11, 
1995 and March 29, 1995.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letters from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 
Protection dated January 11, 1995 and March 29, 1995 submitting a 
revision to the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan.
    (B) 310 CMR 7.24(8) ``Marine Vessel Transfer Operations'' effective 
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on January 27, 1995.
    (C) Definitions of ``combustion device,'' ``leak,'' ``leaking 
component,'' ``lightering or lightering operation,'' ``loading event,'' 
``marine tank vessel,'' ``marine terminal,'' ``marine vessel,'' 
``organic liquid,'' and ``recovery device'' in 310 CMR 7.00 
``Definitions'' effective in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on 
January 27, 1995.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Letter from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 
Protection dated February 1, 1996 committing to address the outstanding 
issues associated with 310 CMR 7.24(8) as identified by EPA in a letter 
dated September 19, 1995.
    (B) Nonregulatory portions of the submittal.

[FR Doc. 96-21692 Filed 8-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P