[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45797-45800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-21926]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA117-4132; FRL-7047-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Pennsylvania; One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan for the 
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This revision 
submits an analysis and determination that there are no additional 
reasonably available control measures (RACM) available to advance the 
area's attainment date after adoption of all Clean Air Act (Act) 
required measures. On December 16, 1999, EPA proposed to approve, and 
to disapprove in the alternative, the attainment demonstration State 
implementation plan (SIP) for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton 
severe ozone nonattainment area (the Philadelphia area). The intended 
effect of this action is to propose approval of a reasonably

[[Page 45798]]

available control measure (RACM) analysis submitted by the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania. This action is being taken in accordance with the 
Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief, 
Air Quality Planning and Information Services, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the documents relevant to 
this action are available for public inspection during normal business 
hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; 
and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of 
Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, 
Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cripps, (215) 814-2179. Or 
by e-mail at [email protected]. Please note that while 
questions may be posed via telephone and e-mail, formal comments must 
be submitted, in writing, as indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this 
document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    A. When did Pennsylvania submit the RACM analysis? On July 19, 
2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania) submitted the 
RACM analysis for the Philadelphia area as a SIP revision.
    B. Did Pennsylvania submit any other revisions to or other material 
relevant to the attainment demonstration on July 19, 2001? On July 19, 
2001, Pennsylvania also submitted revised motor vehicle emissions 
budgets for the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia area that 
include the benefits of the Federal Tier 2/Sulfur rule, and a revised 
enforceable commitment to conduct a mid-course review. The revised 
budgets and revised enforceable commitment submitted on July 19, 2001 
are the subject of a separate supplemental notice of proposed 
rulemaking published recently in the Federal Register.

II. Analysis of the Pennsylvania Submittal

    A. What are the requirements for reasonably available control 
measures (RACM)? Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires SIPs to contain 
reasonably available control measures (RACM) as necessary to provide 
for attainment. EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the 
RACM requirements of section 172(c)(1). (See 57 FR 13498, 13560, April 
16, 1992.) In that guidance, EPA indicates that potentially available 
control measures, which would not advance the attainment date for an 
area, would not be considered RACM under the Act. EPA concludes that a 
measure would not be reasonably available if it would not advance 
attainment. EPA's guidance also indicates that states should consider 
all potentially available measures to determine whether they are 
reasonably available for implementation in the area, including whether 
or not they would advance the attainment date. Further, the guidance 
calls for states to indicate in their SIP submittals whether measures 
considered are reasonably available or not, and if so the measures must 
be adopted as RACM. Finally, EPA indicated that states could reject 
potential RACM measures either because they would not advance the 
attainment date, would cause substantial widespread and long-term 
adverse impacts, or for various reasons related to local conditions, 
such as economics or implementation concerns. The EPA also issued a 
recent memorandum on this topic, ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available 
Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration 
Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas.'' John S. Seitz, Director, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. November 30, 1999. Web 
site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
    B. How does this submission address the RACM requirement? The 
analysis submitted by the Commonwealth on July 19, 2001, as a 
supplement to its attainment demonstration SIP for the Philadelphia 
area, addresses the RACM requirement. The Commonwealth convened a 
stakeholders group (the Southeastern Pennsylvania Ozone Stakeholders 
Group) to examine a wide variety of potential stationary source and 
mobile source controls. The stationary/area source controls that were 
considered included the adoption of South Coast Air Quality Management 
District/California Air Resources Board's (SCAQMD/CARB) limits for 
certain volatile organic compound (VOC) source categories that are more 
stringent than the already adopted control technique guideline (CTG) 
limits (e.g., fabric/paper, magnet wire, vinyl, miscellaneous metal 
parts, coil and metal furniture coating); limits on area source 
categories not covered by a CTG (e.g., adhesives, motor vehicle 
refinishing, surface/cleaning degreasing, underground storage tank 
vents); rule effectiveness improvements; wood furniture coating 
(Pennsylvania has a SIP-approved rule encompassing the reasonably 
available control technology limits recommended under the CTG; under 
consideration for the RACM analysis was expanding the applicability of 
those limits to sources smaller than those covered by the CTG); 
``beyond RACT'' controls on major stationary sources of nitrogen oxides 
(NOX); and other potential measures. The mobile source 
control measures considered included the national low emission vehicle 
program, accelerated replacement of older buses with cleaner buses, 
compressed natural gas (CNG) fueled buses, and emissions-based vehicle 
registration fees. Mobile source controls also included control 
measures aimed at reducing vehicle trips, travel or congestion via land 
use planning, traffic flow improvements (signalization, ramp metering, 
speed limit restriction enforcement), improved mass transit, expanded 
parking at rail stations, telecommuting, bicycle lanes or access 
improvements at rail stations, parking taxes/surcharge, and increased 
gasoline taxes or miles travel based fees. The Commonwealth considered 
an extensive list of potential control measures and chose measures for 
implementation which went beyond the Federally mandated controls, which 
were found to be cost effective and technologically feasible. From the 
list of measures considered, the rules and measures adopted and 
submitted by Pennsylvania, as analyzed and examined by the stakeholders 
group, are as follows:
    (1) Pennsylvania has adopted, and EPA has SIP-approved, the 
Commonwealth's rule for vehicle refinishing. The rule includes VOC 
content limits for motor vehicle refinishing coatings, application 
standards and storage and housekeeping work practices. This rule goes 
beyond the Federal rule in content limits and application and work 
practices standards. Compliance with this rule was required in 2000.
    (2) Pennsylvania has adopted, and EPA has SIP-approved, the 
Commonwealth's rule requiring the sale of vehicles under the national 
low-emission vehicle program.
    (3) Pennsylvania has adopted, and EPA has SIP-approved, the 
Commonwealth's rule to implement Phase II NOX controls under 
the Ozone Transport Commission's (OTC) Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOU). This rule established a fixed cap on ozone-season NOX 
emissions from major point sources of NOX. The rule grants

[[Page 45799]]

each source a fixed number of NOX allowances, applies state-
wide, and requires compliance during the ozone season. The 
implementation of this rule commenced May 1, 1999 in the Commonwealth 
and reduces NOX emissions both inside and outside the 
Philadelphia area.
    (4) Pennsylvania has adopted and EPA has proposed approval of the 
Commonwealth's rule to implement the NOX SIP call. We 
received no adverse comments on our proposed approval and expect to 
publish our final approval in the near future. The Pennsylvania rule 
requires compliance commencing with the start of the 2003 ozone season. 
(This measure was identified as Phase III control under the OTC MOU on 
NOX control in the submittal because the evaluation occurred 
in 1996 well before the SIP call proposal.)
    (5) Pennsylvania has also adopted rule effectiveness improvements 
for the implementation of regulations through the attainment year of 
2005 for its portion of the Philadelphia area as part of its post 1996 
Rate of Progress Plan which EPA has proposed or will shortly propose to 
approve in a separate rulemaking action in the Federal Register.
    A large number of the considered measures have the potential to 
achieve benefits but are not considered to be cost effective, others 
have the potential for substantial widespread and long-term adverse 
impacts and one measure, a mandatory ban on residential lawn care 
activities on high ozone days, was considered infeasible due to the 
impracticability of effective enforcement. These are explained in 
further detail in the docket for this rulemaking.
    The attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia area contains 
modeling using the urban airshed model (UAM) which demonstrates that 
the Philadelphia area cannot attain solely through reductions in the 
Philadelphia nonattainment area. The Philadelphia area relies on 
background reductions of transported ozone to attain the 1-hour ozone 
standard. EPA established in the NOX SIP Call, promulgated 
on October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), the appropriate division of control 
responsibilities between the upwind and downwind States under the Act. 
In Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000), the court upheld the 
NOX SIP Call on most issues, although a subsequent order of 
the court delays the implementation date to no later than May 31, 2004. 
EPA is moving forward to implement those portions of the rule that have 
been upheld, ensuring that most--if not all--of the emission reductions 
from the NOX SIP Call assumed in the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 
attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia area will occur. EPA's 
modeling to determine the region-wide impacts of the NOX SIP 
Call clearly shows that regional transport of ozone and its precursors 
is impacting nonattainment areas several states away, and this analysis 
was upheld by the court. Also, on January 18, 2000 (65 FR 2674), EPA 
promulgated a final rule on petitions filed pursuant to section 126 of 
the Act by eight Northeastern States including Pennsylvania, that 
sought to mitigate interstate transport of NOX emissions 
from a number of large electric generating units (EGUs) and large 
industrial boilers and turbines. Because the allocation of 
responsibility for transport was not made until late 1998 and early 
2000, the prohibitions on upwind contributions under section 
110(a)(2)(D) and section 126 could not be enforced prior to 2003 or 
2004. The implementation of the control measures in states upwind of 
the Philadelphia area that are needed to eliminate the significant 
contribution of sources in those states--will not ripen until 2003 
under the section 126 petitions or 2004 under the NOX SIP 
call.
    To demonstrate attainment of the one hour ozone standard, the UAM 
modeling required the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia area to 
achieve emissions levels on the order of 428 tons per day of VOC 
emissions and 317 tons per day of NOX. The ROP plan for 2005 
is projected to get emissions levels down to 428 tons per day of VOC 
emissions and 310 tons per day of NOX. The ROP plan does not 
consider the effects of the Federal Tier 2/Sulfur rule nor 
Pennsylvania's NOX SIP call rule. These two programs will 
further reduce emissions in the area staring with the 2004 model year 
vehicles in the case of the Tier 2/Sulfur program and May 2003 for 
Pennsylvania's SIP call rule. Any potential reductions from the 
remaining potential RACM measures in aggregate are relatively small as 
documented in the docket compared to the ROP reductions (plus the 
additional benefits of Pennsylvania's SIP call rule and the Tier 2/
Sulfur benefits) that will be reached by the 2005 attainment date.
    Thus, EPA concludes that no additional measures could advance the 
attainment date for the Philadelphia area prior to full implementation 
of all upwind and local controls scheduled for implementation by 2005.

III. Opening of the Public Comment Period

    The EPA is opening a comment period for 30 days to take comment on 
the Commonwealth's July 19, 2001 RACM submittal discussed above. EPA is 
proposing to approve Pennsylvania's SIP revision for RACM, which was 
submitted on July 19, 2001, as a supplement to its 1-hour attainment 
demonstration for the Philadelphia area. EPA is soliciting public 
comments on the issues discussed in this document or on other relevant 
matters. These comments will be considered before taking 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 document.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the RACM analysis submitted by the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on July 19, 2001 as a supplement to its 1-
hour attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia area.

V. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any 
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does 
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Public Law 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a 
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or

[[Page 45800]]

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 
43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a state 
rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the 
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities 
established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because 
it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's 
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria 
of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior 
existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards 
(VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure 
to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, 
when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP 
submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air 
Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. 
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 
7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary 
steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential 
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. 
EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 
1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance 
with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the 
Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued 
under the executive order. This proposed rule regarding Pennsylvania's 
RACM analysis for the Philadelphia area does not impose an information 
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 24, 2001.
Judith M. Katz,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 01-21926 Filed 8-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P